.png)
A Platform for Workers: Singapore’s Approach to Platform Worker Protections
- Kevin Chew and Anuja Dhoot
- Jun 4
- 8 min read
In this Explainer, find out...
Why was the Platform Workers Bill implemented?
How does the Platform Workers Bill strengthen protections for platform workers?
What are the impacts of the Bill on different stakeholders?
Introduction
They deliver your lunch, get you home after work and keep the city moving — platform workers have become a familiar presence in Singapore’s urban landscape. A platform worker is someone who provides ride-hailing or delivery services through a platform, derives any payment from doing so, and operates under the platform’s guidelines or oversight. Such platform workers include taxi drivers, private-hire car drivers and delivery riders who work through platforms like Gojek, Grab and Foodpanda.
In 2023, there were about 70,500 platform workers, representing 2.9 per cent of the local workforce. While that number dipped to 67,600 in 2024, platform work will likely remain a crucial component of the economy in the long term. This is because workers may increasingly operate on a project basis rather than through sustained employment, as observed by analysts. Thus, questions surrounding the nature of platform work remain firmly in public focus.
The Vulnerabilities Of Platform Work
Before the Platform Workers Bill was passed, the Government identified deliverymen and ride-hailing drivers (who comprise a vast majority of platform workers) as a vulnerable group. The vulnerabilities that these workers encountered can be distilled into three main categories:
No legal recognition of platform workers as a distinct labour class;
The precarious nature of platform work; and
Limited representation of platform workers without the ability to unionise.
Lack of Distinct Legal Recognition
To begin, a great deal of vulnerability stemmed from the lack of distinct legal recognition afforded to platform workers. Prior to the passing of the Bill, platform workers were classified as self-employed persons (SEPs). An SEP is someone who performs work for others under a contract for service, whereas an employee is someone who works under a contract of service with an employer.
In simpler terms, the key distinction is that an SEP operates their own trade or business and earns an income by trading goods or providing services. SEPs generally have the freedom to decide what tasks to accept as well as when, where and how they work. In contrast, an employee works for an employer, who broadly has the right to decide when, where and how the employee works.
However, unlike other SEPs, platform workers are under significant management control by platform operators. This is because they depend heavily on the platform for customer access and cannot decide how much to charge for their services. Although platform workers resemble employees in this way, they lacked the basic employment protections accorded to employees (e.g., work injury compensations) due to their prior classification as SEPs.
Despite these problems, the simple solution of recognising platform workers as employees was equally unviable. This is because such a classification could undermine platform workers’ independent status. In turn, there will be further limits to their autonomy, a key feature of platform work which platform workers regularly seek out.
Without legal recognition of platform workers as a separate labour class, neither arrangement seemed ideal, leaving workers in a vulnerable state of limbo.
The Precarious Nature of Platform Work
Platform workers are also subjected to other risks due to the nature of their work, including uncertain earnings and traffic accidents.
Generally, platform workers have modest incomes and limited chances for wage increases. In 2023, the median gross monthly income of full-time platform-related occupations was S$2,000. This was lower than the income of a 20th percentile full-time resident employee. Unlike the consistent paychecks of employees, platform workers’ earnings fluctuate based on the demand for their services.
Furthermore, many platform workers lacked Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings for housing and retirement. Since platform workers were not classified as employees, they were only required to make MediSave contributions of up to 10.5 per cent of their net earnings to fund their medical expenses. Platform operators were also not required to make CPF contributions. Without a structured saving mechanism, platform workers were further exposed to the dangers of insufficient financial planning.
Platform workers — especially ride-hailing drivers and delivery riders — also spend a disproportionate amount of time on the roads, putting them at higher risk of traffic accidents and injury. Accidents not only cause physical harm to victims but also incur substantial financial costs. Since platform workers were not entitled to work injury compensations, they had to foot the medical bill in cases of accidents. Serious injuries may even render them temporarily unfit to work, worsening monetary losses.
Limited Representation and Bargaining Power
Finally, platform workers were not allowed to form unions to protect their interests (since they were not legally recognised as employees). According to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), a trade union is an association of workers or employers that aims to regulate relations between workers and employers. A union typically seeks to improve workers’ working conditions, productivity, as well as economic and social status.
Without unions, platform workers faced challenges in resolving disputes with platform operators and had limited bargaining power during negotiations. Although organisations like the National Taxi Association (NTA), National Private Hire Vehicles Association (NPHVA), and National Delivery Champions Association (NDCA) had been advancing the interests of platform workers, they lacked legal backing. These organisations were unable to sign legally binding agreements with platform operators, which would ensure accountability by law.
Vulnerable yet Indispensable
Despite the risks, many platform workers remain in their line of work. For some, platform work offers a much-needed flexibility and income without the constraints of full-time employment. For example, a caregiver who engages in platform work can take time off at unpredictable moments to take care of their family member. Platform work also provides a lower barrier to entry without educational or technical requirements.
Apart from being vital to the livelihoods of many individuals, platform work will likely play an increasingly important role in the economy. Recognising that the platform work ecosystem was here to stay, the Government sought to address the many vulnerabilities that platform workers experienced.
The Platform Workers Bill
In response, Parliament passed the Platform Workers Bill on 10 September 2024. This Bill aims to protect the rights of platform workers by defining the responsibilities of platform operators.
Distinct Legal Recognition of Platform Workers
The Bill recognises platform workers as a distinct labour class. Formally defined, a platform worker is someone who:
Has an agreement with a platform operator to provide delivery or ride-hailing services to its service users;
Receives payment or other benefits in return for providing the service; and
Is under the platform operator’s management control (such as being subject to rules, monitoring or penalties).
On the other hand, a platform operator provides delivery or ride-hailing services to its users, and exercises control over its platform workers. According to the Bill, companies will be responsible for assessing whether they are a platform operator. Those who fall under the definition will be required to notify the Commissioner for Labour, who is responsible for overseeing and enforcing labour laws.
Crucially, the Bill strengthens protections for platform workers in three key areas:
Increased CPF contribution rates for platform workers and platform operators;
Work injury compensation for platform workers; and
A legal framework for the representation of platform workers.
Increased CPF Contributions
First, the CPF contribution rates for platform workers and operators will gradually increase over five years to reach up to 20 per cent and 17 per cent respectively. This will align with the CPF contribution rates of employees and employers.
However, these rates will only apply to younger platform workers born in 1995 or later, as well as those born before 1995 and who have opted in to the CPF scheme. Older platform workers born before 1995 who do not opt in will continue to be required to make MediSave contributions, and will not receive the platform operator’s share of CPF contributions.
Work Injury Compensation
Second, platform operators must provide their platform workers with work injury compensation (WIC) insurance at the same level of coverage as employees.
Platform workers will be eligible for WIC when picking up or delivering a passenger or item but not while waiting for jobs. The platform operator that the worker was working for at the point of injury will be deemed responsible for providing the compensation. The affected platform worker can initiate a claim by informing the platform operator of the incident and injury details. If a platform worker disagrees with the assessment of their work injury claim, they can file an objection to MOM who will judge the dispute.
Legal Framework for Representation
Third, the Bill will empower platform work associations (PWAs) to legally represent platform workers and negotiate collective agreements with platform operators. According to the Bill, a PWA is an association of platform workers or platform operators that aims to regulate relations between platform workers and operators.
If necessary, a PWA can organise and commence a strike or industrial action in furtherance of a work dispute with a platform operator. Industrial action refers to an act that restricts the performance of tasks by platform workers, and is carried out with the intent of furthering a work dispute. However, a strike or industrial action can only be carried out upon obtaining the consent of a majority of the affected platform workers by a secret ballot. During the secret ballot, every member of the PWA must have an equal right and reasonable opportunity to record their vote freely.
That being said, every PWA must apply to be registered in order to gain legal backing. The Registrar of PWAs (who is responsible for the administration of PWAs) may reject or cancel the application if the association violates legal provisions, has unlawful objectives, or acts against platform workers’ interests.
Impact On Different Stakeholders
Impact on Platform Workers
For platform workers, the Bill offers long-awaited recognition and protection. By classifying them as a distinct category of workers, it allows for tailored safeguards. The introduction of mandatory CPF contributions under the Platforms Workers CPF Transition Support Scheme eases workers into a more sustainable model of long-term financial security.
The extension of WIC is also critical and means better financial protection in the event of work-related injuries. Additionally, the creation of PWAs provides platform workers a channel to negotiate working conditions.
However, concerns persist. While 93 per cent of platform workers are in ride-hailing or delivery, the Bill does not currently extend to those in other platform-based sectors such as data entry, babysitting and elderly care. Consequently, these workers face vulnerabilities without access to the same protections. That said, future reviews may consider amending the Bill to cover other platform services.
Impact on Platform Operators
Platform operators have largely welcomed the Bill as it resolves long-standing ambiguity pertaining to labour classification. The clear demarcation ensures that platform workers are covered, while independent contractors remain outside the scope.
Nonetheless, new requirements, such as CPF contributions and WIC coverage, will increase operational expenses. Platform operators have indicated the importance of avoiding passing increased costs to workers, through reduced job opportunities or wages, or to consumers, via higher service fees. Such outcomes would undermine the Bill’s protective intent, which is to improve employment conditions for platform workers without making the services less accessible or affordable for consumers.
The Government’s Role
Striking this balance between protecting platform workers and the sustainability of platform service has been central to the Government’s approach. The Bill has been positioned as a forward-looking and calibrated measure in response to the rise of the gig economy. The Government has also acknowledged the need for flexibility in indicating that the scope of the Bill will be periodically reviewed and adjusted where necessary.
At the same time, the Government is mindful of over-regulation. Excessive stringency, it warns, may stifle innovation or reduce opportunities for workers if platform operators end up opting to leave Singapore.
Conclusion
The passing of the Platform Workers Bill reflects a turning point in Singapore’s labour policy — one that recognises the unique position of platform workers as neither wholly self-employed nor traditionally employed. By offering a distinct classification and extending critical protections, the Bill attempts to bridge a longstanding gap without eroding the flexibility that draws many to this novel form of work.
Still, the Bill is not a catch-all solution. Its effectiveness will depend on careful implementation and continuous review. But in acknowledging that modern work does not always fit traditional moulds, the Bill lays the groundwork for an adaptable labour landscape in Singapore.
This Policy Explainer was written by members of MAJU. MAJU is a ground-up, fully youth-led organisation dedicated to empowering Singaporean youths in policy discourse and co-creation.
By promoting constructive dialogue and serving as a bridge between youths and the Government, we hope to drive the keMAJUan (progress!) of Singapore.
The citations to our Policy Explainers can be found in the PDF appended to this webpage.
Comments