Platform workers (PWs) are individuals engaged in platform work agreements with operators for services such as ride-hailing or delivery.Over the past decade, the gig economy has grown rapidly in Singapore, with 70,000 PWs accounting for roughly 3% of the country’s workforce in 2023.Yet, platform work is inherently high-risk, with PWs often facing precarious working conditions, limited workplace protections and financial insecurity. The Platform Workers Act (PW Act), formulated based on recommendations provided by the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers, was enacted in January 2025 to reduce the vulnerabilities of PWs and improve assistance mechanisms.
Problem
The problems that PWs face are directly linked to their classification as ‘self-employed’ rather than employees. This status severely restricts their access to key protections and benefits typically afforded to regular employees, including compensation for work-related injuries, workplace safety measures and membership to representative bodies with the legal authority to engage in disputes with employers.
Financial Insecurity and Unsustainability
The financial insecurity PWs face primarily stems from their exclusion from the mandatory Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions, depriving them of a critical safety net for housing and retirement savings. CPF contributions, particularly to the Ordinary Account, are essential to finance property purchases, service housing loans and accumulate savings for retirement. Moreover, platform dependency, where PWs rely heavily on platform work for income, renders them especially vulnerable to market volatility.
The inability to ensure long-term financial security also affects short-term financial needs, including building up emergency medical funds which are crucial considering the precarious nature of gig work. While Platform Worker Associations (PWAs) provide emergency financial relief through initiatives like short-term aid, these programmes come with restrictive eligibility requirements that limit accessibility. Consequently, PWs often shoulder medical costs independently and have limited capacity to respond to unexpected crises, often forcing them to work through injuries.
Inadequate Workplace Protection
Furthermore, the classification of PWs as ‘self-employed’ excludes them from legal protections mandated by law to regular employees, resulting in a significant disparity in workplace safety measures between PWs and regular employees. Prior to the PW Act, PWs were not entitled to benefits under the Work Injury Compensation Act and the Workplace Safety and Health Act, despite the inherent risks in platform work. This is especially concerning given their susceptibility to road accidents while at work.
Additionally, platform operators were previously excluded from legal obligations stated in the Workplace Safety and Health Act to maintain a safe working environment for PWs. This resulted in the absence of structured safety guidelines and preventive measures typically mandated for traditional employees. Occupational health and safety implemented by platform operators were entirely voluntary, and primarily involved workshops and training sessions.This allowed platform operators to avoid accountability for unsafe working conditions, thereby subjecting PWs to high-risk work environments without adequate systemic protections.
Lack of Official Representation
Another problem PWs face is the absence of official institutions to represent their interests. Given their self-employed status, they are unable to unionise and engage in official negotiations with platforms to improve their employment conditions. Three PWAs (ie National Taxi Association for taxi drivers, the National Private Hire Vehicles Association for private-hire vehicle drivers, as well as the National Delivery Champions Association for freelance delivery workers) are presently parked under Singapore’s National Trades Union Centre. However, they are still considered unofficial and are hampered in their ability to effect substantial change. The legal mechanisms afforded to trade unions to represent their members in negotiations with employers do not apply to PWAs and PWs. Therefore, PWAs are unable to engage in formal dispute management discussions with platform operators, limiting the scope of issues which can be negotiated and preventing the establishment of official dispute resolution measures.
Furthermore, PWAs primarily provide financial assistance to registered members. While these subsidies may offer temporary relief, they do not contribute to long-term savings for medical or retirement needs. The PWAs’ reliance on cash-based subsidies highlights the absence of systemic protections that ensure consistent protection for PWs. Additionally, eligibility for schemes like the National Trades Union Congress Care Fund is contingent upon prior membership, thereby excluding new PWA members who sustain injuries in the first few months of their membership. By requiring them to proactively seek PWA membership and anticipate these delays, PWs may eventually rely on self-funded sources rather than PWA schemes for support. Crucially, because of the primary forms of assistance they provide, PWs may view PWAs as sources of financial assistance rather than avenues for collective bargaining, thereby limiting active participation and engagement.
Policy Options
To establish a framework to improve the employment conditions of PWs, the Singapore government considered the following policy options:
- Reclassification of PW Status: In line with efforts in Spain, Belgium and Portugal, this move would entitle PWs to several employment rights including fixed hourly wages and vacation leave. In the local context, this would also require platform operators to make mandatory contributions to PWs’ CPF and extend compensatory rights under the Work Injury Compensation Act. However, it limits the working flexibility that PWs enjoy (eg deciding how much and when to work) as they would be required to adhere to predetermined working requirements as outlined in their employment contracts.
- Case-by-Case Approach to Resolve Issues: An alternative option is leave disputes to the courts and let employment status be decided on a case-by-case basis. The United Kingdom exemplifies this model: in Uber BV v Aslam (2021) the Supreme Court ruled that because Uber fixes pay, controls how rides are carried out and prevents drivers from rejecting jobs or negotiating them, Uber drivers are “workers” – not independent contractors. As such, this fact-specific judgement unlocked minimum-wage and holiday-pay rights in accordance with the drivers’ “worker” classification but notably hinged on the platform’s degree of control. Singapore follows a similar path for most self-employed claims, with courts examining the parties’ conduct to decide whether legal protections should apply. Although this judicial approach can extend employment rights, it offers no bright-line test, leaving both workers and platforms unsure of their obligations until litigation settles the question.
- Representation via Unionisation: In Singapore, unions also serve as a primary means of representation for PWs, situated alongside employers and the government in a tripartite framework. Yet, Singapore’s unionisation rate is relatively low, a phenomenon that can be attributed to previous legislation that restricted collective bargaining and afforded employers with disproportionate control over employment conditions. Though unions in Singapore have successfully safeguarded jobs and minimised layoffs after major international crises, their role in addressing everyday workplace issues has diminished because smaller disputes between employers and employees are resolved through the Industrial Relations Act, which offers a clear guideline for dispute resolution. Unions serve a more collaborative and advisory function, working closely with the government and employers to strengthen Singapore’s labour sector. Additionally, existing PWAs representing PWs are not classified as unions, and therefore lack formal authority to negotiate labour conditions with platform operators, thereby limiting the scope of collective representation available to PWs.
Resolution
In 2021, the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers was established to address critical gaps in the protections afforded to PWs. Recommendations in three key areas were developed collaboratively with industry stakeholders including platform operators, the three PWAs and the Ministry of Manpower. All 12 recommendations were adopted by the government in 2022, culminating in the PW Act.
- Resolving Financial Insecurity and Unsustainability: Platform operators are now required to make CPF contributions at the existing rates applicable to employers and employees. Platform operators are also obliged to collect CPF contributions on behalf of PWs, which will increase over five years to align with the rates applicable to traditional employees by 2029. This phased approach is intended to minimise financial strain on both PWs and platform operators. PWs aged 30 and above may opt in to participate in the full CPF contribution regime, thereby enabling them to make decisions based on their financial circumstances. The government will also play in part in reimbursing platform operators’ share of CPF contributions when PWs opt for maternity and paternity leaves, while providing additional payments for eligible PWs who make increased CPF contributions to ensure that there is no reduction in take-home pay.
- Strengthened Workplace Protection Measures: The scope and extent of work injury compensation under the Work Injury Compensation Act is to be extended to PWs. However, PWs are still unable to claim compensation for light duties (ie work that involves reduced physical activity). Additionally, the boundaries of platform operators’ liability have been clarified to ensure they remain accountable for the injuries sustained by PWs who are carrying out platform work.
- Legal Backing and Recognition of PWAs: PWAs are now given legal backing to negotiate employment-related matters with operators. This means that they will be able to represent PWs in negotiations and dispute management with platform operators with an official framework in place. Consequently, the outcomes of these discussions will be made legally binding through collective agreements certified by the Industrial Arbitration Court. This marks a significant shift towards strengthening the collective bargaining power of PWAs.
While the PW Act reflects Singapore’s proactive and standardised approach, its success hinges on the effective implementation of its provisions. Interim challenges, such as inconsistencies in representation, tiered implementation timelines and the need to capture ground sentiment highlight the complexities of regulating the rapidly evolving gig economy. The PW Act represents a crucial step toward addressing the vulnerabilities of PWs, but its true effectiveness will be determined through iterative refinements, stakeholder engagement and long-term impact evaluation.
Read the case study From Precarity to Protection: Examining the Platform Workers Act by Ziv Ng Tian Fu and Chia Ke Xin Denise, which was awarded the Merit Prize in the Case Writing Competition 2024/25 at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.