News

I agree that platform workers need to have stronger labour protections, especially for work injury compensation due to the nature of their work. ( , Sept 10) But to over-protect platform workers with higher Central Provident Fund contributions for housing and retirement adequacy may not be fair to the rest of the self-employed people who are only required to top up their MediSave contribution annually.  We need to revisit the issue of self-employment. Are these platform workers being agents or staff of such platform providers? The role, responsibility, obligation, compensation and remuneration may differ accordingly.  Not all platform workers are from the lower-income spectrum of society. Some people opt for these jobs because of personal freedom.  Others may not want to upskill or reskill and instead choose a “more relaxed” semi-retirement job.   The more pressing issue for platform workers would be their workplace injury insurance and compensation.  As they are on the move constantly, their protection against personal injury is of utmost importance.  As for housing and retirement adequacy, the platform workers need to sort out their priorities themselves.  Society should not view the platform workers as belonging to the “disadvantaged group”. Such workers should not expect the state to bear the cost of “social justice”.  I fear the social implication on the rest of the self-employed sector, who are also facing increasing competition and may demand more assistance from the state to maintain their livelihoods and standard of living.  Giving more benefits is a popular move. But I hope that the relevant authorities would do only the essential part that is more relevant to the nature of the work. Do not over-protect or over-provide, as it may lead to a deterioration of our work values.