Leong Sze Hian

Uniquely Singapore

After reading the news reports about FairPrice not allowing customers to buy more than five 10-kg bags of rice, consumers may be flocking to Fairprice, thinking that it has the cheapest rice and stocks may run out.

Restricting consumer purchase may not protect consumer interest, and may have the opposite effect of causing even more buying to hoard rice which in turn would cause rice prices to increase further.

I refer to MP Seah Kian Peng’s reply in the Straits Times, (“FairPrice items still among the cheapest“, May 6) to Mdm Lily Cheong’s letter, “Puzzled over stiff weekly price rises at FairPrice” (ST, May 1).

Mr Seah is the Deputy CEO & COO, NTUC Fairprice Co-operative Ltd. (Parliament)

Mr Seah said:

While global rice prices have increased by more than 100 per cent since March last year, FairPrice has held its rice prices. Our house-brand rice prices have increased by 15 to 25 per cent since March last year …

Due to the low price of FairPrice house-brand rice, sales of our rice more than doubled in March and this has depleted our rice stockpile. To make sure we provide a reliable supply of rice to consumers, we have replenished our stock with rice bought at prevailing market prices.

On 6-7 May, the same day Mr Seah’s letter appeared in the Straits Times, FairPrice was selling its cheapest housebrand, Fairprice Thai Fragrant Rice (5 kg), at $6.60.

Wasn’t its cheapest housebrand fragrant rice $26.80 a week ago and $17.50 about two weeks prior to that?

So, my question is how this is possible at all – given that, as Mr Seah explained, FairPrice “depleted our rice stockpile” in March and that FairPrice had “replenished our stock with rice bought at prevailing market prices”?

Simply put, does it mean that:

Price of FairPrice’s cheapest fragrant rice (10 kg) was:

Original price: $17.50

Later part of April: $26.80.

6-7 May: $13.20 ($6.60 x two 5 kg bags) (After Mdm Lily Cheong’s letter to the Straits Times on May 1.)

Why did the prices vary so much?

Since “global rice prices have increased by more than 100 per cent since March last year”, why is it that Fairprice was selling its cheapest housebrand FairPrice Gold Superior Fragrant Rice (10 kg) at $16.20 in June 2007 (source: Case survey of household items prices, July 2007), compared to $13.20 for its cheapest house-brand fragrant rice now?

Was FairPrice’s rice over-priced by about 23 per cent in Jun 2007 ($16.20 divided by $13.20)?

100 per cent global rice in price – but 23 per cent cheaper at FairPrice?

The statement, “Our house-brand rice prices have increased by 15 to 25 per cent since March last year”, does not seem to make much sense, as it appears to have decreased by 23 per cent now, compared to June 2007.

I am puzzled as to how a 100 per cent increase in global rice prices since March 2007 can translate into rice today which is about 23 per cent cheaper than in June 2007? Was FairPrice’s profit margin higher in June 2007?

In view of this “yo-yo” pricing, I would like to suggest that FairPrice give Singaporeans more detailed information about its pricing policies.

I also refer to the article “Quick buck on rice: FairPrice acts(Today, May 10), and media reports that customers were not allowed to buy more than five 10-kilogramme bags of rice per shopping trip from FairPrice.

Fairprice said they suspected that traders or small businesses were taking advantage of their low pricing, and the restriction is to protect consumer interest.

I was at Giant on 10 May, and it was selling Thai White Rice (5 kg) at $5.29.

On 10 May, Fairprice was selling its house-brand Thai Fragrant Rice (5 kg) at $6.60.

On 11 May, Sheng Siong’s website priced its Happy Family Whole Grain Rice (5 kg) at $5.20.

So, the cheapest rice at Giant and Sheng Siong was actually about 20 and 21 per cent cheaper, respectively, than the cheapest at Fairprice.

(Even though fragrant rice and white rice are different, for lower-income Singaporeans, the cheapest rice that they can buy may be more important to them.)

Golden Phoenix and Golden Peony

With reference to the Case Rice Price Survey released on 15 May, why is it that the entire Straits Times article (“Supermarkets cry foul over Case’s rice survey”, ST, May 16) and the Case press release are focused on the housebrand Golden Phoenix Fragrant Rice?

The ST article states that:

The cheapest Golden Phoenix rice: $13.30 for a 5 kg bag at Fairprice and $18.80 for a 10 kg bag at Prime.

Note that the comparison is for a 5 kg bag and a 10 kg bag of the same rice.

Why would anyone buy two 5 kg bags at FairPrice for $26.60, when one can buy a 10 kg bag from Prime for $18.80? The two 5 kg bags cost 41 per cent more than the 10 kg bag!

This brand curiously happens to have the highest price in the price variation range, of all the fragrant rice in the Case survey, with a price range from $13.30 to $15.00 (5 kg bag).

Why wasn’t the cheapest-range rice, Golden Peony Fragrant Rice (price range from $9 to $12.80), highlighted instead?

Wouldn’t consumers be more interested in the cheapest fragrant rice, rather than the costliest?

So, how does FairPrice fair for Golden Peony Fragrant Rice, the cheapest in the range?

The answer:

The Case survey shows “a dash” ( – ) for Golden Peony Fragrant Rice at FairPrice, and the lowest price was $9 for a 5 kg bag at Cold Storage. What does the dash mean? That FairPrice does not sell this brand, or was it out-of-stock on 6-7 May?

Finally, why did the survey not cover White Rice, which is cheaper than Fragrant Rice (which the survey said was selected because it was more popular)?

Even though White Rice may be less popular, it should not mean that we do not cover it at all.

After all, maybe the cheaper White Rice is more popular with lower-income Singaporeans?

Read also:

The Unions, the Press and the People by Leong Sze Hian and Choo Zheng Xi.

CASE’s relationship with NTUC by Leong Sze Hian.

———————–

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Police reports made against Mobile Air

The Singapore Police have confirmed that “police reports have been lodged against…

被五巴士司机起诉 新捷运聘本地知名大状文达星辩护

五名巴士司机分别状告本地巴士业者新捷运(SBS Transit),指责后者违反加班工酬条款,支付不足工酬。新捷运则已委任本地司法界大状文达星(Davinder Singh)为他们辩护。 代表巴士司机的Carson律师楼,今日也在脸书证实新捷运委任文达星,针对五位巴士司机控诉作辩护。目前,新捷运有14天时间提呈辩词。 文达星目前还代表我国总理李显龙,个别针对时评人梁实轩和本社总编许渊臣进行诽谤诉讼。 上月23日,新捷运企业沟通副主席Tammy Tan向本社证实,上述五名巴士司机经由Carson律师楼提呈的诉状,并正与律师商讨,有意针对相关指控进行辩护。 这些司机已在该公司任职三至10年不等。在上月20日提呈的诉状中,也提及其中四名司机,曾向推事庭提呈类似的诉讼。尽管在今年7月和八日,出席了两次与国家交通工友联合会(NTWU)和康福德高的会谈,不过他们认为控诉和报告未受到重视。 原告也申诉到劳资政纠纷调解联盟(TADM),也被转介给职工总会(NTUC)。不过基于没有得到“结论性的答复”,他们向新捷运发函,要求解释每月薪资明细。 “尽管当时新捷运同意这些司机在两日后回函,不过此后没有再收到任何回复,于是他们再向新捷运连发四封追问邮件。” 诉状中提及的控诉,包括原告指责他们被预期在休假日之前,可以“连续7日工作无休”,这不符合双方同意的聘任书,故此可能违反《雇佣法》36条,即员工理应每周获得休息日,或者值班超过30小时理应获休假。 原告也指控被要求“每周工作超过44小时”,也违反《雇佣法》规定的法定工时。

K Shanmugam: Government to consider how to address fake news issue

Minister of Law K Shanmugam told Parliament on Monday (3 April) that…

SDP’s Bryan Lim shares elderly Singaporean man’s unhappiness towards PAP

Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) member Bryan Lim took to his Facebook on…