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 7 of 25.
“Mr Speaker, just a final clarification on what he said. Because I am very confused on why the WP is called "Workers' Party", if they are not really so pro-unions to begin with. In their website, I was just reading from here, the website says, "Marshall announces the idea of forming a party for workers while addressing the delegates of the army, civil service unions at a conference and he said, 'We can evolve a plan where we can create a political party whose membership is exclusively confined to members of trade unions'." So, the history of the WP is to be a party for trade unions. How can you not be in a relationship that is closely intertwined when you want to be a party for trade unions? I do not understand where you start from.”
“So, is the Member saying that his relationship with the unions is a transactional one, not built on mutual win-win and a symbolic relationship?”
“Mr Speaker, I want to clarify the Member's question about ratifying ILO Conventions. We do not ratify Convention C87 because we require registration of unions. And that is to guard against what we call "yellow unions", unions that might be acting on behalf of employers to the detriment of employees, and also we to ensure the officers in the union were not convicted for criminal breaches of trust because these are necessary to maintain the trust. The tripartite relationship is built on trust so that there is trust between the tripartite partners involved in negotiations. And just so that the Member is aware, there are actually quite a number of countries that have ratified, but it might also be useful for the Member to know that countries like the US and New Zealand have also not ratified this particular convention that the Member raised. I listened to the Member's roundabout defence of why unions need to be independent and all, and the WP will or will not seek relationship – I am very confused. Does WP want to build relationship with unions or not?”
“I would like to take this opportunity to put on record our thanks and appreciation to our tripartite partners for journeying together with us to build a fairer and more inclusive society. Miss Rachel Ong and Mr Desmond Choo have aptly contrasted the acrimonious path that some overseas jurisdictions took in regulating platform work with our own tripartite approach. I cannot agree more. The tripartite system of close collaboration and dialogue between the Government, the Labour Movement, and businesses, has led us to a framework that balances the needs of all parties in a way sustainable for the platform ecosystem. The result is a legislation that will allow platform workers to benefit from improved housing and retirement adequacy, coverage for work injury compensation and representation. Platform operators, too, will benefit from a more engaged workforce and better industrial relations. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [Applause.]”
“For example, platform workers can tap on the Jobs and Skills Centres for career coaching service and advice. From early-2025 onwards, platform workers above 40 years of age can also tap on the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Training Allowance to pursue eligible full-time training programmes, such as the full-time SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme to support mid-career transitions into sectors with good employment opportunities. They will receive a monthly training allowance computed as 50% of their average monthly income and capped at $3,000 a month, over a lifetime cap of 24 months. However, the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support scheme will not be open to platform workers, to answer Ms Pereira's question. The scheme is targeted at employees who became unemployed due to involuntary reasons, such as retrenchment and dismissals, and platform workers are not included as they are not employees. Ms Usha Chandradas asked whether legislative protection will be extended to freelancers, particular those in the arts community who can also be a vulnerable group. While this is outside the scope of this Bill, we take the points that the Member of Parliament has raised and will consider how this group may be better supported. Mr Speaker, in closing, I would, again, like to express my appreciation to Members of the House who have expressed their support for the Bill. Let me recap what this Bill seeks to do. Platform workers face volatility and their incomes are subjected to the market forces of demand and supply. This is a feature of the platform sector. And while we cannot change this, we can close the gaps in protections faced by platform workers and the sooner we do so, the better. This could not have been done without strong tripartite dialogue and support.”
“For annual leave and medical benefits, we must recognise that these are relevant for employees where working hours and duties are fixed; whereas platform workers enjoy more flexibility compared to employees. Platform workers and platform companies are keen to retain this flexibility, rather than be deemed as employees. Thus, the Bill has focused on protections, such as CPF, work injury compensation and representation, which, we feel, will help platform workers be better protected, while maintaining the flexibility they desire. Mr Ang Wei Neng asked for the number of platform workers who are non-Singaporeans. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked whether we will take action against foreigners illegally providing platform services. Under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA), only foreigners with valid work passes are allowed to work in Singapore. Foreign employees can only work in the occupation stated in their work passes. Foreign employees, who provide platform services, may face prosecution under the EFMA. Ms Pereira spoke about the volatility and unpredictable nature of income earned in platform work. She and many other Members, such as Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Ong Hua Han and Mr Mark Lee, also raised the need to support platform workers in upgrading their skills and transiting to other careers. This Bill is intended to protect those who have chosen to make platform work their occupation, especially those who face precarity because of their fluctuating incomes. At the same time, as Members have pointed out, platform workers can also consider other forms of employment. We will support them. There are measures in place to support platform workers who wish to transit to other sectors.”
“Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Ong Hua Han and Ms Usha Chandradas spoke about protecting platform workers from abuse and unfair reviews, with Mr Yip suggesting to provide mental health support for platform workers. Let me be clear that, we have zero tolerance for abusive behaviours towards our platform workers. In this respect, the Protection from Harassment Act protects all individuals, including platform workers, from threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour. Perpetrators may be prosecuted for offences under the Act. With these existing protections in place, we do not need to introduce additional protection for platform workers in this Bill. Platform work associations can also work with platform operators on measures to deal with abusive customers, including blacklisting such customers and making available avenues of redress for platform workers who have been given unfair reviews. Just like anyone else, platform workers who need mental health support can tap on the mental health services in community care settings, such as the Community Outreach Team, which offers basic emotional and psychological support. Those facing job transitions can also seek no-cost assistance from Workforce Singapore's (WSG's) employment-focused peer support groups. Platform work associations can also play an important role, as they are often the first port of call for platform workers when they are faced with challenges and I would encourage them to do more in this regard. Mr Ong Hua Han also sought clarification on this Bill excluding other benefits, such as annual leave and medical benefits.”
“Introducing CPF and work injury compensation for platform workers, therefore, ensures that platform operators who derive their sources of revenue from the hard work and risks taken by the platform workers, provide them with basic rights and protections. It will also ensure a level playing field for companies operating in Singapore to compete fairly in terms of business costs. How do employers in non-platform sectors typically deal with these costs of providing protections for their employees? Well, it is part and parcel of running a business, so they build these costs into their overall operating cost and decide how to price their services based on a range of factors – costs, profitability and market competition. This is what keeps prices manageable. It would be disingenuous to reflect and charge these costs through a separate fee component. Platform operators should think carefully before doing so, because, as I said, the market is a competitive one. Such a move would be tantamount to passing the costs directly to customers. Customers have a choice to switch to other platforms where costs are shared more equitably or even stop using such platform services altogether and switch to other alternatives. The costs incurred by platform operators on work injury compensation and CPF can also be audited. Platform work associations can work with platform operators to regularly publish these data, so workers and consumers can clearly see how the costs are shared across stakeholders to counter any claims of profiteering or loading of these costs onto the workers themselves. Finally, I will address the concerns on other issues, such as the welfare and longer-term career paths for platform workers, which are not included in the scope of this Bill.”
“Put another way, the intent of clause 6(1)(b) of the Bill is to capture entities where automation of the use of data for a specified purpose is the primary mode of operation. That said, I would like to highlight that whether an entity is exercising management control and the broader question of whether it is a platform operator is fact-dependent and companies should do their own due diligence checks to see if they fit the bill. MOM will provide support to companies to determine whether they are likely to be a platform operator, including through a self-assessment checklist. Companies can also approach MOM if they still require further advice on their specific circumstances. As Ms Mariam Jaafar pointed out, as a society, all stakeholders should be prepared to do our part for platform workers to receive protections they need. The Government has provided generous transition support through the PCTS and will monitor work injury compensation insurance premiums. Platform operators will need to consider how best to manage the costs. Consumers, too, will have a role to play. I should emphasise that the costs arising from providing platform workers with basic protections are no different in nature from the business costs that other employers are already incurring to provide CPF and work injury compensation to their employees today. Thus, it is a levelling up of what platform operators ought to have been paying, if they are to ensure basic protections for platform workers like what other employers have been doing for their employees all along.”
“Many Members have raised clarifications on the impact of this Bill on platform operators, platform workers and customers. Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Mark Lee, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Ong Hua Han, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Ms Joan Pereira and Ms Mariam Jaafar have raised several concerns on whether the costs of these platform work protections will be passed to platform workers and customers. Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi spoke about assuaging the concerns of platform workers, platform operators and customers as we implement the Bill and Mr Neil Parekh requested Government assistance or incentives to help businesses make this transition. On the impact to workers, I have elaborated at length on the measures to prevent the passing of costs to workers. So, I will not repeat the points here, except to add that ultimately, market competition is an important self-regulating force. It bears repeating that platform work associations will play an important role in representing the interests of platform workers and these workers will also have the choice to switch platforms if they feel that costs are unfairly passed over to them. On the impact to platform operators, the Government has been working closely with the companies who have stepped forward to seek advice on how to implement CPF and work injury compensation regimes for platform workers. We will continue to do so through existing structures. This is the first time we are defining platform operators in legislation and we understand companies may have questions on whether they meet the definition of a platform operator. An example of a question, which Ms Usha Chandradas raised, is on the threshold of human intervention in the use of data that would define an entity as exercising management control over a worker.”
“Platform operators also need the flexibility to decide how to remunerate platform workers, in order to balance the demand and supply of services while keeping prices manageable for consumers. We should avoid being too heavy handed with regulation, which could stifle the innovation and sustainability of the platform economy, and lead to poorer outcomes for platform workers themselves. Instead of the blunt tool of regulation, it is better to focus on the outcomes and empower stakeholders to negotiate for their interests. This is why we are empowering platform work associations to negotiate with platform operators for better outcomes and to balance the relationship between platform workers and platform operators. Platform work associations will be well placed to represent the interests of platform workers and negotiate a sustainable and mutually agreed solution at the individual platform operator level that takes into consideration all parties’ circumstances. Platform work associations and platform operators are also free to establish and participate in tripartite platforms as needed, similar to how trade unions and employers interact today. Beyond getting help from platform work associations, I would add that platform workers do have the choice to switch platforms, if they feel that they have been treated unfairly, or even when the app of one platform operator is facing technical issues. This is how most people would operate today anyway – you arbitrage between the rates of different apps and switch from one to the other, and if one is not working, go to the next one. So, this is commonsense and people are already doing that today. I will move on to the concerns raised on the impact of this Bill on stakeholders.”
“Ms See further suggested requiring platform operators to provide some form of income protection for platform workers if there is an outage in their app platform. Mr Xie Yao Quan, Mr Louis Chua and Mr Leong Mun Wai had various suggestions on introducing minimum earnings for platform workers as well. We agree that the law should set basic standards on platform work in terms of transparency. For example, we will require platform operators to keep records of and provide their workers with earning slips. These earning slips must also state that they are for platform workers, so that platform workers know that they are platform workers and are aware of their rights. These requirements are specified in clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill respectively. Related to this, Mr Patrick Tay sought clarification on the different classes of platform workers mentioned in clause 13(4). To clarify, clause 13(4) will provide the Government with the flexibility to set different record retention periods for different groups of platform workers, for example, based on the type of platform services they provide. Having said that, we currently have no plans to set different record retention periods. On the broader points made by the various MPs asking for more regulatory requirements and minimum earnings, we should be mindful of the risks of overregulation that is impractical and counter-productive. As mentioned earlier, algorithms may be proprietary, and regulating platform operators’ use of algorithms will impose significant compliance costs and affect the economic viability of platform operators. Potential entrants may also be deterred from the market due to the fear of excessive regulatory burden.”
“The new legal framework allows platform work associations to represent platform workers and such platform workers can include PRs. Remember we said there is a two-pronged assessment of who is a platform operator – so, private hire car companies and taxi companies that do not fulfil the definition of platform operators and are therefore not platform operators, are not covered under the framework. But associations or societies can continue to engage such companies, which is already the case today. Mr Ang also queried on the requirement that at least two-thirds of the officers in a platform work association must be active platform workers, and whether officers should be required to work a minimum number of hours each month to better stay connected and relevant to the platform workers. In general, the representation framework for platform work sector is modelled after that of the trade unions, which has worked well and contributed to Singapore’s industrial harmony over the years. The two-thirds requirement is, for example, the same as that in the trade union space. On the point of having a fixed work hour eligibility criterion for officers, we have not set this requirement as we recognise that platform workers may not have a regular schedule every month. Ms Jean See asked for the introduction of tripartite set-ups between sectoral platform work associations and platform operators. Mr Pritam Singh, Ms See and Mr Louis Ng also suggested to require platform operators to make information on its algorithm and earnings transparent to platform workers, or to validate their algorithms against AI Verify for fairness and safety.”
“Mr Patrick Tay asked how MOM would determine when platform workers have undertaken industrial action. Industrial action refers to an act that limits or restricts the performance of tasks by platform workers, which is carried out with the intention to further a work dispute with a platform operator. For instance, if a group of platform workers intentionally turn off their apps with the intent to compel a platform operator to agree to their terms of negotiation, we will consider them to be undertaking industrial action. In contrast, a platform worker will not be regarded as undertaking industrial action if he shares information on better terms offered by a competing platform operator and suggests that other platform workers switch operator to enjoy the better terms. Because in the second scenario, there is no intent by the platform workers to further a work dispute with a platform operator. Mr Tay also suggested allowing platform work associations to use digital voting for secret ballots since platform workers have no fixed workplaces. We agree that platform workers may not have fixed workplaces or fixed schedules and hence a different way of conducting ballots may be needed. Hence, we accepted the recommendations of the Tripartite Workgroup on Representation of Platform Workers. MOM will conduct electronic voting for secret ballots for recognition. To ensure the security and integrity of the voting process, we will implement strong safeguards including secure authentication systems. Mr Ang Wei Neng sought clarification on whether platform work associations can negotiate with private hire car rental companies and taxi companies and represent permanent residents, or PRs.”
“The proposed Bill should not alter the flexible nature of platform work that is a key feature of platform work that both the workers and the platform operators desire. Nonetheless, we agree this should not be at the cost to personal safety and health of platform workers. Hence, amendments to the WSH Act will empower platform workers to prioritise safety and prevent platform operators from penalising them for doing so. Platform operators need to review and address the safety and health risks arising from platform work, as with companies in other industries. This will be put into practice through the Approved Code of Practice for Platform Services, which MOM and the WSH Council are consulting the public on. Developed with tripartite partners, platform operators and platform workers, the Approved Code of Practice will codify how platform operators and platform workers can collectively address safety concerns in platform work, including fatigue management and support platform workers’ access to safety training. It includes what Mr Leong Mun Wai suggested – that platform operators should not penalise platform workers who were unable to complete the job for valid reasons. With these in place, we should allow the industry to take ownership and work on its safety practices. Intervening to micromanage the incentive structures and algorithms of platform operators or the working hours of platform workers risks jeopardising the flexibility and sustainability of platform work. Next, I will address questions on the fourth set of amendments on the legal framework for representation of platform workers. I will also speak on how some of the suggestions raised by members are more suited to be taken up by platform work associations in negotiations with platform operators.”
“The new work injury compensation insurance market will be led by insurers from the Platform Workers Work Injury Compensation Implementation Network as first-movers. We welcome other players to join the market as well. Nevertheless, we agree with Members that it is important for platform workers to receive compensation in a timely manner, so they can recuperate from a work injury with peace of mind. An injured platform worker only needs to inform the platform operator he is working for of the incident and his injury details. The platform operator will file a work injury report to MOM and the platform operator’s insurer will be notified to process the work injury compensation claim. The platform worker will be notified of the work injury compensation claim case reference number and the insurer processing the claim. As with the employee regime, insurers and platform operators will be required to follow operational timelines for the processing of claims expeditiously, and the same dispute resolution mechanisms apply. If multiple platform operators are liable, MOM will appoint the insurer of one of those platform operators to process the claim for timely payouts to the platform worker. Ms Jean See asked about plans to augment the Bill to protect platform workers against the unintended consequences of safety regulations. Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggested regulating the working hours of platform workers. Mr Melvin Yong suggested for platform workers to have training for road safety and safe load management and to codify incentive structures. From our engagements, platform workers value the flexibility to determine how long and when to work, which helps them accommodate personal commitments.”
“The Fixed Expense Deduction Amount to be applied will be based on the mode of transport for the specific job in question. As you heard from Mr Xie Yao Quan's speech earlier, 20% if you are walking, 35% if you are riding a motorbike, 60% if you are driving. Next, I will cover the clarifications regarding the third set of amendments to ensure financial protection of platform workers if they get injured at work and to strengthen stakeholders’ responsibilities to prevent injuries. Mr Pritam Singh asked about the cost impact of work injury compensation insurance premiums on platform operators. Mr Desmond Choo, Mr Mark Lee and Ms Yeo Wan Ling sought clarifications on the work injury compensation process for cases where multiple platform operators are involved. There was also a suggestion for a centralised insurance system to minimise disputes over which platform operator is liable for the claim. While I agree with the need for fair and expeditious compensation, a monopolistic approach is not the best way to provide for platform workers’ insurance needs. In comparison, allowing platform operators to purchase work injury compensation insurance in an open and competitive market facilitates sustainable premiums. The open market allows platform operators to negotiate insurance rates with insurers of their choice and a competitive market facilitates sustainable premiums based on claims history. As with employers, platform operators’ insurance premiums will account for the risks in the sectors they operate in, which Ms Mariam Jaafar asked about. This will be based on indicators such as payroll size and number of workers.”
“This provides a channel for the platform workers, through the platform work associations, to communicate and negotiate with the platform operators. Similar to the trade union space, this can be done in a way that seeks to achieve win-win outcomes and preserves the harmonious relationship between the platform workers and platform operators in this fast evolving industry. In addition, because of the cohort-based approach, an increasing proportion of platform workers will be covered by mandatory CPF contributions over time, as the years go by. Over time, all the younger workers who take on platform work will have mandatory CPF contributions. Therefore, it is in the interest of platform operators to treat all platform workers fairly, regardless of whether they opt-in or are in the mandatory cohort. Finally, the platform work sector is a competitive and fluid one, where consumers and platform worker can easily switch platforms depending on what they feel works best for them. It is therefore also in the interest of platform operators to treat all workers fairly from the perspective of worker retention. Mr Ang Wei Neng asked about the CPF contribution rates for platform workers aged above 55. As mentioned, the contribution rates set out in the schedule of the Bill are subject to the CPF contribution rate increases for employees in the same age group. Mr Ang will be pleased to know that we remain committed to implementing the 2019 recommendation by the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers to align the CPF contribution rates for employees aged above 55 to 60 to those of employees aged 55 and below. Mr Sharael Taha asked how expenses will be factored in for platform workers who use multiple modes of transport.”
“The Government is working with partners, including NTUC and Institute for Financial Literacy (IFL) to ensure that platform workers are aware of the benefits of opting in to the increased CPF contributions. IFL will also offer holistic financial literacy guidance for platform workers. Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman, Mr Ong Hua Han, Mr Pritam Singh and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim spoke about platform workers potentially facing discrimination because of their CPF contributions. Let me reassure Members that we have been actively engaging the potential platform operators and they are supportive of making CPF contributions for their platform workers. There was a suggestion to police or audit the platform operators' algorithm to ensure that it does not result in discrimination against platform workers who opt in for CPF. There are two challenges with this suggestion. First, an algorithm is quite dynamic, responding to real-time changes in demand and supply for platform services. Any audit will be reactive and of limited utility. The moment you get the algorithm and audit it, something has changed in the next one hour and you will always be chasing the tail. Second, algorithms are proprietary knowledge. If we force platform operators to reveal such knowledge, this may drive them away and bring about a loss of platform worker jobs, which is not our desired outcome for these workers. So, how will we address this issue? Platform work associations will have the legal mandate to represent the interest of the platform workers. If there are instances of possible discriminatory practices by any platform operator, the platform work association can take this up with the relevant operators and, where necessary, inform MOM.”
“If it is on an opt-out basis, there may be some who might only realise later that their CPF contributions increased and will want to withdraw. This would be administratively onerous on both the platform workers and platform operators. Nonetheless, I do encourage older platform workers to make a conscious decision and take the active step to choose increased CPF contributions from the start, especially if they are servicing a housing loan or want to build up their savings for retirement. Furthermore, a study by the Institute of Policy Studies found that younger platform workers expressed stronger preference for additional CPF contributions to help meet their housing needs as they were more likely to have housing obligations or plans to buy a house. Younger cohorts would also benefit more from the compounding of interest, given the longer runway for accumulation. Members would appreciate that platform work is a very heterogeneous space. Different individuals participate in platform work for various reasons and to various extents. Some do it full-time as their main source of income, others do it part-time to supplement their other sources of income. Yet others do it ad hoc to just get some pocket money. Platform workers have given feedback that they prefer a choice to decide if they want to contribute CPF, based on their different needs. Hence, we set the mandatory contribution for CPF to begin for those who are born on or after 1995. It respects the autonomy of the platform workers while ensuring that on a cohort basis over time, a majority of platform workers will have mandatory CPF contributions. Ms Mariam Jaafar and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked about how we plan to encourage platform workers to opt in or to help strengthen their financial literacy.”
“Underlying their suggestions is the sentiment that CPF contributions are very important for all platform workers. I share the same sentiment. But there are pertinent considerations behind the proposed construct that we have put forth. The five-year phase-in period was a careful decision we made, considering the take-home pay impact on platform workers, the cost impact on platform operators and the possible costs that could be passed on to consumers. These are also concerns raised by various Members in their speeches. A five-year phase-in period will allow any impact to the various stakeholders to be moderated and allows time for the market to adjust to a new equilibrium. For platform workers who wish to achieve higher CPF contributions earlier than 2029, they can make voluntary CPF contributions to all three accounts in their CPF between 2025 and 2028, and benefit from tax relief for these additional voluntary contributions. The decision to allow older platform workers to choose whether to participate in the increased CPF contributions by opting in recognises that they may already have existing plans to finance their housing and retirement needs. Some may have already finished paying their home loans. Older platform workers in many of our engagement sessions expressed preference for the choice to opt in. We respect these preferences that older platform workers have expressed to us. This is why we have allowed older cohorts to opt in, rather than including all by default and requiring them to opt out. The opt-in arrangement allows platform workers to carefully consider their needs and plans before consciously choosing to increase their CPF contributions.”
“Mr Pritam Singh's remark that the 100% PCTS offset applies to the lowest increase is not true as the increase in each year is up to 2.5% points. Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked whether the PCTS can be extended to all platform workers who earn more than $2,500, for up to the first $2,500 of their earnings. The PCTS is targeted at lower-income platform workers to provide them with monthly support in the transition period when they see a decrease in their take-home pay as they would have less disposable income for their daily expenses. As announced earlier, the qualifying income cap has been increased to $3,000 a month. The median income of a platform worker ranges from $1,500 to $2,500 a month, so more than half of platform workers should meet the income criteria for the PCTS. These enhancements to the PCTS have increased the estimated total budget for the PCTS by close to 60%. Mr Sharael Taha asked if part-time platform workers would be covered by the CPF provisions and be eligible for the PCTS and Workfare Income Supplement. The CPF provisions do apply to part-time platform workers, and neither PCTS nor Workfare eligibility is dependent on whether the worker is working part-time or full-time as a platform worker. This is in line with the flexible nature of platform work because the worker can choose the number of hours he or she wants to work. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if we would consider reducing the phase-in of CPF contribution rates from five years to three years and Mr Louis Chua asked to introduce the full increase for platform operators immediately. Mr Gan, Mr Pritam Singh and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also suggested making the CPF scheme compulsory for older cohorts of platform workers or making older cohorts opt out of CPF contributions rather than opt in.”
“An example would be the reimbursement of costs that platform workers may incur for cleaning services if a customer makes a mess in the vehicle. Such expenses will not attract CPF contributions as they are not meant to add to the platform worker's earnings. Mr Neil Parekh had a query on how existing contracts will be affected and how conflicts between the Bill and platform work agreements will be resolved. When the Bill comes into force, obligations on the platform operator or platform worker under the Act will supersede existing contractual provisions that are less favourable. This means that even if existing agreements are not revised or the platform operator does not enter into any new agreement with the platform worker, the Act will supersede any existing platform work agreement. Therefore, it is in the interest of platform operators to go through existing agreements or enter into new agreements with their platform workers to reflect the new obligations under the Act. Let me move on to clarifications regarding the second set of amendments to support the housing and retirement adequacy of platform workers through the CPF system. Mr Pritam Singh and Ms Yeo Wan Ling have expressed concerns about the impact of increased CPF contributions on platform workers' take-home pay. Overall, platform workers will experience an increase in their total earnings after factoring in CPF contributions from the platform operators. Platform workers can use their Ordinary Account contributions in lieu of cash to pay for their housing loans. Furthermore, the Government is providing the PCTS. As mentioned in my speech yesterday, we have enhanced the PCTS to offset 100% and 75% of the year-on-year increase in the first and second year respectively.”
“I raise this observation to make the point that where we have landed at this Bill today is a careful balance of the interests of the various stakeholders involved to provide platform workers with the protection they need while making sure that the platform economy continues to be sustainable. With this principle in mind, I will now address the queries and concerns raised by broad themes. Some of the questions raised by Members have already been addressed in my speech yesterday, so I will not cover them here again. I will start by addressing questions related to the first set of amendments on the definition of terms and scope of entities and workers covered under the Bill. Many Members have suggested expanding the scope of the Bill to cover other platform services beyond that of the ride-hail and delivery services. As I have earlier explained, the Bill will account for the vast majority of platform workers doing work that is precarious. That said, I would like to assure Members we will certainly review the scope of the Act in the future, as the platform landscape continues to evolve. Mr Patrick Tay had a query on the meaning of "agreement" in clause 5(1)(a) of the Bill. Clause 5(1) sets out the conditions that must be met for the purposes of determining if an individual is a platform worker. The "agreement" in clause 5(1) will become a "platform work agreement" only when an individual satisfies all conditions to be a platform worker. Mr Tay also sought clarification on the meaning of "special expenses" in the definition of "earnings" in the Bill. "Special expenses" include payments meant to reimburse the expenses of platform workers when providing the platform service.”
“Sir, this is a very challenging legislation and the policy solutions may not be perfect. We will have to make trade-offs and accept that not all the issues and gaps in the platform space can be fully addressed through this legislation alone. But the status quo of leaving this group of workers – these platform workers, who are vulnerable – would not be the right thing to do. It would have been far easier to just do nothing or perhaps take the easier approaches adopted elsewhere that unfortunately do not address the unique features of the platform workspace. This Government is taking the approach of enacting legislation to define platform workers as a distinct category of workers because we believe it is necessary and the right thing to do for this group of precarious workers. In legislating, we seek to preserve the key characteristics of the platform economy to ensure it can still function effectively, even as we seek to reduce the precarity of platform workers. All stakeholders, including consumers, will need to play a part. I would like to make an observation on the considerations raised by Members. Some Members have expressed concerns that the introduction of the Bill will raise prices. On the other hand, there have also been calls to do more for platform workers to provide even more protections for them. For example, to extend work injury compensation coverage to platform workers travelling to and from home or waiting for jobs; but this will further drive up the costs of protections that society will have to bear.”
“Beyond the recommendations of PWAC, Members can appreciate the very complex implementation mechanisms and operational processes that insurers, platform operators, CPF Board and MOM will need to put in place to ensure seamless and smooth execution for CPF collection, an effective work injury compensation claims regime and a workable representation framework. My MOM colleagues have worked closely with the platform operators, our tripartite partners NTUC and SNEF as well as various agencies, taking their feedback and working through various policy and operational constructs to address the complex nature of work in this sector. Mr Xie Yao Quan's speech just now characterised some of these challenges in coming up with very detailed implementation details. Sometimes, I look at my officers and I think, the kind of mental gymnastics that they do to come up with all these implementation details, deserves an Olympic medal. I want to put on record my thanks to all of them for their dedication and commitment to strengthening the support and protections for our platform workers. The third are Singaporeans at large. Various surveys have shown that Singaporeans are prepared to pay a little bit more to give these platform workers better protection. The percentages may vary across different surveys taken at different time points, but that is not the main thing. The key thing is this: this Bill we are enacting today is a declaration of our social compact. Recognising that "every worker matters" means that platform workers also deserve to be treated fairly and equitably. I thank Singaporeans for standing in solidarity with these workers who have done so much for us, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
“The WP will kill tripartism, and in its place will be a more adversarial form of relationship and system that we see happening elsewhere. But here is the irony. David Marshall was the founding Chairman of the WP. When David Marshall mooted the idea of forming a "political party whose membership is exclusively confined to members of trade unions" and started the WP in 1957, the founding executive committee members of the party comprised 20 trade unionists and 10 non-unionists. Mr Gerald Giam and the WP are completely ignorant about how the WP started as a party of unionists. And some of this information was obtained from their own website. Clearly, the WP is no longer a pro-worker party. Unions have long been a part of WP's history. Somehow, along the way, they lost the trust in their relationship with the unions. So, now, Mr Gerald Giam says, like a bit of a toxic ex-boyfriend, because I cannot have a relationship with unions, no one else should have as well; there should be no love between any other political party and the unions. Fortunately, for Singapore, tripartism under the PAP Government is strong and, to NTUC and our unions, I say "Solidarity Forever". [Applause.] And the Advisory Committee for Platform Workers (PWAC), which comprises tripartite representatives, was able to negotiate and come up with a balanced set of recommendations which we are now legislating through this Bill. So, I thank the members of PWAC for their efforts that made this possible. The second ingredient is a strong and dedicated team of civil servants at MOM.”
“It is also quite easy for a government to be pro-business. But it is very difficult for a government to be both pro-worker and pro-business at the same time. Close relationships between unions and political parties are perfectly normal in all functioning democracies. This usually takes the form of the union either forming a party on its own or funding and supporting one party. A cornerstone of our strong tripartite relationship is the symbiotic relationship between PAP and NTUC as well as our respect for the employers. The symbiotic relationship of PAP and NTUC has allowed us, as the ruling party, to run a government that is both pro-worker and pro-business at the same time. Tripartism undergirds the industrial harmony and economic success of Singapore. Other countries try to emulate us, but they cannot because, unlike us, they do not have the symbiotic relationship between unions and the governing party, and so they do not have the tripartism that we have. What is dangerously clear to us is that the WP will seek to dismantle this. When the WP attacks the symbiotic relationship between the PAP and NTUC and Mr Gerald Giam said, and I quote, "I believe that unions must be independent and non-partisan", he is, in fact, saying that the WP will not align itself with any union or form any relationship with any union. The tripartism that we have in Singapore today, which many other countries want to emulate, only exists because of the close relationship and the mutual respect between the PAP and NTUC. You dismantle this and everything falls apart. So, all workers and employers should sit up and take notice because the WP leadership wants to destroy tripartism as it stands here today.”
“Multi-homing on various platforms further adds to the complexity. For these reasons, many countries are grappling with the difficulties of putting a legislative frame around a constantly evolving entity. How did we manage to put forth this Platform Workers Bill today, that both the governing and opposition Members have given their unanimous support to, in such a short time, over a mere two to three years since we started this stream of work? The International Labour Organization (ILO) is also interested to understand how we did it. I will share three key ingredients that made this possible. First, and most important, tripartism. Singapore is able to come up with this innovative and landmark piece of legislation because of the close working relationship and trust amongst the tripartite partners. It is a relationship that is forged through the crucible of time, with which we had weathered various crises together over the decades. It allows us to adopt a collaborative approach to seek win-win solutions and enables us to nimby adapt and adjust to the fast-evolving nature of the platform landscape. This is something that is unique and special here in Singapore that is not necessarily the case in many other countries. The Director-General of ILO Mr Gilbert Houngbo has shared his admiration for the unique tripartism we have here in Singapore when I met him in Geneva and he is keen to learn more about how our tripartism actually works. But what is so unique about our tripartism? We must understand that there is a natural tension between the interests of businesses and workers which stems from the competing goals of maximising profits on the one side, and securing fair treatment and compensation on the other. It is quite easy for a government to be pro-worker.”
“Mr Speaker, let me begin by thanking all Members for their support for the Platform Workers Bill. Both the WP and the PSP have spoken in support of this Bill to give platform workers better protection. I thank them for their support as well. In my opening speech yesterday, I went into some length to explain the construct of the Bill and some of the implementation details for CPF contribution, work injury compensation and representation. Members will get a sense of how complex it is to implement the recommendations put forth by the Advisory Committee for Platform Workers – and Mr Xie Yao Quan's speech just before mine, gave a very good glimpse into the complexities of the negotiations and, sometimes, all the to-ing the fro-ing, all the arguments that can take place. But eventually, we landed on a good set of recommendations. Before I address the specific questions raised by Members, I thought it is useful for me to help Members of this House understand how we are able to put forth this landmark legislation to help a group of workers who are precarious, when many other countries are still grappling to solve their problems. The platform sector is a very heterogeneous one that is rapidly evolving and, sometimes, new ones will come onto the scene as well. A key characteristic is the very dynamic way in which supply and demand of jobs and labour are very quickly matched, and dynamic pricing also serves to incentivise service users and workers to facilitate a match. Platform operators, workers and users interact with one another dynamically as demand/supply and prices respond and change rapidly in real time. This allows flexibility and is a feature platform workers desire but it also imposes management control on these workers.”
“For those who have, for example, bid a very high price, such as $10,000 or $8,000, in their first tenancy term, this price will hold. But following their first tenancy term, that price will be adjusted to the assessed market rent, at which the median for non-subsidised cooked food stalls is about $1,200. So, that will help to make the price more sustainable for this hawker in the longer term over the next tenancy terms.”
“For those who have, for example, bid a very high price, such as $10,000 or $8,000, in their first tenancy term, this price will hold. But following their first tenancy term, that price will be adjusted to the assessed market rent, which is about $1,800 to $1,500, thereabout. So, that will help to make the price more sustainable for this hawker in the longer term over the next tenancy terms. [Please refer to "Impact of Escalating Hawker Stall Rentals on Food Affordability", Official Report, 9 September 2024, Vol 95, Issue 140, Oral Answers to Questions section.] [(proc text) Written statement by Dr Koh Poh Koon circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)] I wish to make the following factual correction to my reply to the supplementary question from Member Mr Yip Hon Weng during Question Time at the Sitting on 9 September 2024. My reply should read as follows:”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the debate be now adjourned". [(proc text) Resolved, "That the debate be now adjourned". − [Dr Koh Poh Koon]. (proc text)]”
“Mr Speaker, I just want to reiterate again that nothing in this proposed Bill, in the legislation proposed in this Bill, has any clauses that are related to how a union ought or not ought to be affiliated to any political party. And since Mr Giam did go to great extent to talk about affiliation between unions and parties, let me just quickly read from the archives of the National Library. It says, after the PAP split its left wing to set up the Barisan Socialist, the Singapore Trades Union Congress also split into two rival factions: the NTUC and the Singapore Association of Trade Unions or SATU. SATU was aligned with the Barisan Socialist and the Barisan Socialist in 1988 folded into the WP. So, I think maybe the WP should think about changing its name because if you feel so averse about being associated with workers, you might want to think about something else.”
“I would like to thank the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and Singapore National Employers' Federation (SNEF) for journeying together with us to strengthen our social compact in this new area. Everyone must play their part, including platform operators, platform workers and consumers at large. The Government will also put in place transition measures to support stakeholders in implementing these changes. Sir, I beg to move. [Applause.] [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Platform work associations will be able to communicate and negotiate with stakeholders, such as platform operators and mall operators, to better address the issues and challenges faced by platform workers. (In English): If the Bill is passed, we plan for the Bill to take effect from 1 January 2025 as the intention is to allow platform workers to benefit from the protections as soon as possible, while bringing more convenience to platform operators and platform workers by having the increased CPF contribution rates and tax relief computed from the start of the calendar year. Singapore is one of the first countries to provide statutory protections for platform workers as a distinct group from employees. Many other jurisdictions are similarly grappling with the challenge of how to better protect their platform workers. In this regard, the International Labour Organization (ILO) has reached out to Singapore to better understand our considerations and experiences in making these policy changes. This signals how important this issue is and shows that we are at the vanguard of developing innovative and sustainable ways to better protect these workers. As Singaporeans, we can all be proud that we are doing this to uplift the social security protections for our platform workers who face precarity due to the nature of platform work. The measures in the Bill will improve their housing and retirement adequacy, provide them with financial protection for work injuries, and enable platform work associations to act as a bridge between platform operators and platform workers so that industrial relations remain stable and conducive to the platform economy. This would not have been possible without our tripartite partners and the close tripartite collaboration we have in Singapore.”
“We will gradually increase the CPF contribution rates for platform operators and workers over five years, in order to reduce the impact on platform operators and workers. Platform workers born in 1995 and later will be required to contribute to their CPF Ordinary and Special Accounts. Younger platform workers have expressed interest in making additional CPF contributions to meet their housing needs. Older platform workers may already have their own housing and retirement plans, so they can choose to opt-in. Platform workers' total income, including CPF, will increase. I understand that some platform workers may still be concerned that their take-home pay will be reduced. To address this, we will provide support to help low-income platform workers. The Government has enhanced the Platform Workers' CPF Transition Support (PCTS), to fully cover the additional CPF contributions required from the platform workers in 2025. This means that the platform workers' take-home pay will not be affected next year. The subsidy in 2026 will also be increased from 50% to 75% and will be gradually reduced in subsequent years. At the same time, the monthly income ceiling for PCTS has been raised from $2,500 to $3,000, thus benefitting more platform workers. Secondly, platform operators must provide platform workers with work injury compensation equivalent to employees’. Compensation includes medical expenses, income loss compensation for sick leave and hospitalisation and a one-time compensation for permanent incapacity or death. Lastly, we will also establish a legal framework to allow platform work associations to represent platform workers, similar to how unions represent employees.”
“We will also introduce the enhanced PCTS for lower-income platform workers. To mitigate concerns around costs being passed down to platform workers, there will be provisions under the amended CPF Act and WICA that prohibit platform operators from recovering the cost of the platform operators’ share of CPF contributions and work injury compensation from platform workers, similar to existing provisions that apply to employers. Consumers also have a critical role to play. The introduction of CPF and workplace injury compensation protections will unavoidably lead to some increase in business costs, but I think as a society, if we all believe that we should provide some core protections for our platform workers, we should be prepared to pay just a little bit more to help platform workers secure their future. In fact, our surveys show that many consumers are indeed prepared to do so and I am heartened by this reflection of our strong social compact. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me now say a few words in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The platform economy has created opportunities for platform workers to earn a living and made life more convenient for many Singaporeans. However, platform work is precarious, so the Government will strengthen protections for platform workers in three areas: first, housing and retirement adequacy; second, work injury compensation and; third, allowing platform work associations to represent platform workers and safeguard their interests. Firstly, platform workers will be entitled to the same housing and retirement adequacy as employees with the same income.”
“Therefore, amendments to the Industrial Relations Act under the Sixth Schedule of the Bill will extend existing channels for dispute resolution to platform work associations and platform operators. For instance, disputes can be brought to MOM for conciliation, and if that fails, the dispute can be heard by the Industrial Arbitration Courts. While platform work associations can organise industrial action just like trade unions, any decision to organise industrial action must be a considered and justified decision. As such, under clause 36(1) of the Bill, a platform work association must not organise or commence industrial action if it has not obtained the consent, by secret ballot, of the majority of members affected by the industrial action. Doing so would be an offence. This is similar to the framework which governs trade unions today. We recognise that there may be concerns around costs arising from these measures. The Government will put in place measures to manage the impact on stakeholders. For work injury compensation, the existing open and competitive insurance market for work injury compensation insurance will facilitate sustainable insurance premiums for platform operators based on the claims history and safety records. Today, there are 26 insurers offering competitive insurance products for the employee regime. We have worked with seven of them to develop operational policies as part of the Platform Workers Work Injury Compensation Implementation Network including providing data for more accurate risk assessment, reducing uncertainty for insurers and platform operators. For CPF, we will pace the increase in CPF contribution over five years and give older platform workers the choice to opt in to higher CPF contributions.”
“As the framework for employers and employees has worked well in preserving industrial harmony, the Bill largely adopts this framework for platform operators and platform workers. In other words, platform work associations will be analogous to trade unions. I would like to highlight three important aspects of this framework for platform work associations. First, we will appoint a Registrar and Assistant Registrars of platform work associations under clause 20 to assess the applications of platform work associations for registration and ensure the responsible administration of platform work associations. Similar to how trade unions may represent employees or employers, platform work associations can represent platform workers or platform operators. Once registered, the platform work associations of platform workers must obtain mandate from their members working with a platform operator to represent them in negotiations with that platform operator. Second, once a mandate is obtained, a platform work association can work with platform operators to discuss and agree on areas for negotiation. Thus far, companies and associations have raised various areas that they may be interested in negotiating, such as safeguarding the health and safety of workers, how earnings are computed and more. Given that platform work is quite diverse and dynamic, tripartite partners agreed to leave it to each platform work association and platform operator to decide on what to negotiate on, rather than to pre-determine a list of issues that they can or cannot negotiate. Third, it is important to preserve industrial harmony in Singapore.”
“Recognising the unique features of platform work, such as the use of different modes of transport for platform workers, we will introduce separate duties for platform operators and for platform workers through amendments to the WSH Act under the 10th Schedule. This will clarify platform operators' responsibility for the safety and health of platform workers when at work and platform workers' responsibility to cooperate with platform operators on safety measures. Next, let me talk about enhanced representation. Today, a group of employees who want to represent their fellow employees must register themselves as a trade union and seek mandate to represent their members in negotiations with the employer and to resolve disputes. For platform work, the National Private Hire Vehicles Association, the National Taxi Association and the National Delivery Champions Association have been actively working to understand the challenges that platform workers in the ride-hail and delivery sectors face, and champion their interests. However, as platform workers are not employees, there is currently no legal framework for the representation of platform workers. While there has been constructive dialogue between the associations and platform operators, tripartite partners agree that the process can be strengthened through a legal framework that sets out the rights and obligations of both platform work associations and platform operators in dealing with each other. Many of the challenges encountered by the platform workers are actually operational in nature and would be better resolved collectively through representative bodies that could work with various stakeholders including mall operators, food and beverage (F&B) chains and so on to find a good solution.”
“If the platform worker was performing "delivery" for two platform operators A and B, compensation liability will be apportioned among both platform operators based on the platform worker's earnings with each platform operator over the past 90 days on lookback. For example, if the platform worker earned $1,000 from platform operator A and $2,000 from platform operator B, A will bear one-third of the compensation liability and B will bear two-thirds of the compensation liability. A platform worker could be performing work in two different platform sectors, meaning, both ride-hail and delivery. Two different sectors: one is fetching passengers, the other one is delivering goods. If a platform worker gets injured while performing a task in a particular platform service, compensation will be based on the platform worker's past earnings from all platform operators that they had worked for in that platform service. The platform worker's compensation will reference his earnings over a lookback period of 90 days before the date of the accident. Platform workers injured while completing ride-hail and delivery jobs at the same time, that means, both platform services simultaneously, will be compensated based on the earnings from their higher-earning service sector. Scoping platform operators' compensation liability to one platform service facilitates sustainable insurance premiums. While platform workers will be protected in case of work injuries, platform operators and workers should work together to reduce the possibility of work injuries in the first place and take remedial actions where necessary. Today, all companies and workers are responsible for safety and health outcomes under the WSH Act.”
“With reference to paragraph 31 of the Ninth Schedule of the Bill, amendments to the WICA specify the work stages of platform services. Platform workers will be eligible for work injury compensation when they are performing pick-up and delivery of passengers or goods. These are the key activities that take place after a platform job has been accepted. Outside pick-up and delivery, platform workers can wait for jobs or pursue their own activities. It would not be fair to extend platform operators' liability to activities which are not work-related. Which platform is liable in case of injury? With reference to paragraph 17 of the Ninth Schedule of the Bill, for platform workers injured while performing a job for one platform operator, that platform operator will be liable. That is quite easy to understand. For platform workers injured while performing tasks for different platform operators at the same time, liability will be confined to one platform operator where possible to simplify claims processing. This will be determined by a prioritisation of the work stages. First, if the platform worker was performing "pick-up" and "delivery” tasks for different platform operators at the same time, only the platform operator behind the "delivery" task will be liable. This is because the platform worker can still choose to reject jobs during the "pick-up" stage but he or she is committed to fulfilling the job at the "delivery" work stage when the passenger or goods are already with them. If multiple platform operators are liable, liability will be apportioned based on the platform worker's earnings from each liable platform operator.”
“Members may also access these materials through the MP@SGPARL app. Let me now take Members through the key features of Work Injury Compensation for Platform Workers. I will focus on three areas: exclusions, what stage of the work is covered under the WICA and which platform is liable in the case of injuries. First on the exclusions. Given the flexibility of platform work, liability for work injury compensation should be scoped to risks that stakeholders can practically address. As platform workers have the autonomy to choose the vehicle used to perform platform work, under the amended WICA, platform workers will not be eligible for work injury compensation if the injury was caused by their use of an illegally modified vehicle, or if the platform worker was not licensed to operate the vehicle in the first place. What stage of work will be covered? Some platform workers take platform work as their main job and do this throughout the day, while others do so on a part-time or ad hoc basis. As platform workers do not have fixed working hours or conventional workplaces, the circumstances under which platform workers will be eligible for work injury compensation will be more scoped, compared to employees. The work injury compensation regime needs to account for the unique features of platform work. In a typical day, a platform worker would log onto the platform app to wait for jobs, before accepting a suitable job. Then, the platform worker would set off to pick up the ride-hail passenger or the item to be delivered and complete the ride or delivery. Hence, we can divide platform services broadly into three stages: waiting for jobs, picking up goods or passengers, delivering and completion of tasks – three stages.”
“To assure platform workers of work injury compensation payouts and to ensure platform operators can discharge their liabilities, platform operators will be required to purchase work injury compensation insurance for their platform workers from MOM-designated insurers. With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute an infographic on the key features of work injury compensation for platform workers?”
“They are not getting CPF contributions from the operator to begin with. But moving forward, for platform workers who are mandated or have opted-in to boost their CPF savings, the Government will also reimburse the platform operators' share of CPF contribution, on top of their lost income, when platform workers seek reimbursement for parental leave. This is part of Government's strong commitment to support parenthood. Let me now move on to financial protection for work injury. Platform workers' financial protection for work injury is currently inadequate compared to employees in similar sectors, such as logistics. Delivery employees and goods delivery partners both ply the roads to get deliveries to us and are exposed to the same risks. Some platform operators voluntarily compensate platform workers for work injuries, such as through personal accident insurance. But the coverage is uneven and at lower levels than what employees are entitled to under WICA. It is important that platform workers, like employees, can recuperate and recover from their injuries without worrying about putting food on the table and get back to work in good health. The Ninth Schedule of the Bill will amend WICA in relation to platform workers and platform operators. Under the amended Act, platform operators will be required to provide work injury compensation to platform workers at the same level of coverage, as employees, comprising reimbursement for medical expenses, income loss compensation for medical leave and hospitalisation leave and a lump sum compensation for permanent incapacity or death. The same compensation caps and minimum sums for compensation for permanent incapacity or death for employees will now apply to platform workers after the Bill is passed.”
“The use of FEDA will apply for the computation of work injury compensation as well. Next, let me talk about the collection of CPF. Like in the employer-employee model, the onus is on platform operators to pay both the platform operator and platform worker share of CPF contribution to the CPF Board monthly. During the month, the platform operator may make deductions and refunds to the platform worker based on the applicable CPF contribution rate. It is an offence for platform operators to make a deduction from a platform worker's earnings and not pay it to the CPF Board. This protects the interest of platform workers. Platform operators will be required to reflect the deduction of the platform workers' share of CPF contribution clearly within their earnings slip for transparency and accountability and platform workers can check these contributions in their CPF account. The Fifth Schedule of the Bill carries amendments to the Income Tax Act to align the tax reliefs and deductions for CPF contributions to the employer-employee model. Finally, the good news for our platform workers is that the Government will also reimburse platform workers for the platform operator's share of CPF contributions under the Government-Paid Leave Schemes, such as Government-Paid Maternity and Paternity Leave, when platform workers take time away from work to care for their newborns. This is at clause 105 of the Bill, which amends the Child Development Co-Savings Act. Today, before the Bill is passed, eligible platform workers get reimbursement from the Government for their lost income when they take parental leave. The Government does not reimburse them for any platform operator share of CPF contribution because this is not applicable to them today.”
“We have aligned generally with the employer-employee model while catering for flexibilities to account for the unique circumstances of platform work. These implementation parameters will apply to all platform workers, including those who have not opted in and only make MediSave contributions. Let me now talk about how the computation goes about. Amendments to the CPF Act will specify how the computation of CPF contributions for platform operators and workers will be aligned to the employer-employee model in terms of how it is tiered based on age and income, and applied to monthly earnings from each platform. However, unlike employees, platform workers incur work expenses which are not reimbursed, such as fuel cost. Hence, the computation of CPF for platform workers will be based on earnings, less a Fixed Expense Deduction Amount, or FEDA. Both platform workers and platform operators have provided feedback that they want a simpler and seamless way to compute CPF contribution. To this end, we will use a prescribed FEDA that reflects expenses for the majority of platform workers. The use of FEDA provides significant convenience for both platform workers and the operators, because the platform workers will not have to keep receipts to track and compute actual expenses for their platform work. The platform operators will not have to incur additional operating costs to re-compute the CPF contribution based on actual expenses. The prescribed FEDA also takes reference from the Fixed Expense Deduction Ratio developed by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore for the computation of net earnings for tax purposes. This is based on actual expense ratios, including industry feedback and surveys on workers' expenses, and reflects expenses for the vast majority of platform workers.”
“But from 2025 onwards, after this Bill is passed, platform workers will receive Workfare payments monthly, instead of annually, because they will now make CPF contributions on a monthly basis. This will help with their cashflow. In addition, from 2029 onwards, platform workers who contribute CPF at the same rate now, by then, like an employee, will receive employee-level Workfare, instead of just two-thirds the amount like self-employed persons. This means that they will benefit from higher Workfare payments of up to $4,900 a year, with a higher proportion paid in cash – 40% instead of the 10%, like a self-employed person. As an illustration, for example, a 35-year-old platform worker earning $3,000 in net monthly income after deduction of allowable expenses, who opts in to increase CPF contributions from 2025, will receive around $2,250 of PCTS over the four-year period between 2025 and 2028, which will offset part of his increase in CPF contributions. He will also receive $18,720 in CPF contributions from the platform operator over a five-year period from 2025 to 2029. Including Workfare payments, the platform worker will receive a total of $23,830 in additional cash and CPF savings for his work from 2025 to 2029. So, this will be a substantial boost to the retirement adequacy and the ability to afford housing for these workers. All this will be helpful towards their housing mortgage payments and retirement savings. We have consulted platform operators and platform workers extensively in the design of the computation and collection of CPF contributions from them. We want to ensure that the CPF contribution process is seamless, cost-effective and protects the interest of platform workers.”
“Overall, platform workers will experience an increase in their total earnings after factoring in CPF contributions from platform operators. Nonetheless, I appreciate that some platform workers will be concerned about reduced take-home pay. The Government will provide support. First, we will enhance the Platform Workers CPF Transition Support (PCTS) to provide greater support to lower-income platform workers who see an increase in their CPF contributions. We had previously announced in 2023 that the PCTS would offset 75% of platform workers' increase in CPF contributions in the first year and 50% in the second year. We will enhance this to offset 100% of the increase in 2025. This means that the Government will pay fully for these platform workers' increased CPF contributions and they will have no decrease in their take-home pay in 2025. We will also enhance the offset in 2026 from 50% to 75%. The offset will taper down gradually thereafter and cease in 2029. We will also increase the PCTS qualifying income cap from $2,500 to $3,000, in line with the increase in the Workfare Income Supplement qualifying income cap from January 2025. This will allow more platform workers to benefit from PCTS. Second, we will enhance Workfare for lower-income platform workers. Today, platform workers are treated as self-employed persons for Workfare payments. This means that those who are eligible for Workfare receive Workfare payments annually, at the end of the year, after making their annual CPF contributions. As self-employed persons today, they receive two-thirds of the Workfare payments that employees receive, as they make lower CPF contributions than employees, and 10% of Workfare is paid in cash and 90% goes to their CPF account.”