After it was reported in mainstream media that Fei Siong Food Management has said that the $600 stall inspection fee is optional, TOC went down to Ci Yuan Hawker Centre to talk to the hawkers today (10 Sep).

National Environment Agency (NEA) currently outsources the management of Ci Yuan Hawker Centre at Hougang to a middleman, Fei Siong Food Management – supposedly a “social enterprise” operator.

Speaking to MSM, Fei Siong’s group general manager Joe Sng clarified that the $600 inspection fee and $50 coin exchange fee are “optional”. He said, “We believe it’s some miscommunication from our team to hawkers.”

He explained that the $600 fee was introduced in July to address concerns by the management on food portions sold by hawkers. After complaints from residents about shrinking food portions, the management introduced the $600 quality control service to address this issue, he added.

TOC talked to some of the hawkers who, understandably, did not want their names to be quoted.

A Chinese-cooked food stall owner shared that she has to pay the $600 inspection fee. Surprisingly, she added that the management has already been charging an inspection fee since last year. It was $700 last year and this year, it was reduced to $600 for some reasons. She also shared that the $50 coin exchange fee is not optional and has to be paid whether the service is being used or not. Pointing at the malfunctioned money collection machine, she said, “if this was still working, we would have to pay for this as well.”

Another cooked-food stall told TOC that she was not aware that the inspection is optional. When told that the management had told mainstream news media that inspection fee is optional, she said, “If the contract writes that we have to pay, nothing much we can contest about.” This stall owner has assumed that the inspection fee is meant for hygiene inspection.

A nasi-lemak stall worker also said that it was never told to them that the inspection fee is optional, and that it was just listed in the contract as one of the fees which have to be paid in order to rent the stall.

A roasted-meat stall owner added that there was no choice for him as far as the inspection fee goes. This is because it was already stated in the contract given to him by the management. In other words, it’s either one signs the contract including the inspection fee as a whole or not signs at all.

But the roasted-meat hawker did say that regardless of the inspection fee, it is still somewhat cheaper than renting a stall in some privately-run coffeeshops. Then again, when one compares the hawker stalls at Ci Yuan with those run by NEA directly, it is definitely still cheaper for hawkers to operate at the NEA-managed hawker centres on the average.

Makansutra founder KF Seetoh wrote on this blog, “These hawkers in the new hawker centres (run by social enterprises) pay in total (with a laundry list of extra services and charges), an average of $4000, more than what it cost the highest bidder in Maxwell Hawker Centre – arguably the most popular hawker centre in Singapore – where it hovers between two to three thousand dollars a month in total.”

Interestingly, a Muslim food stall owner shared that he does not need to pay the $600 inspection fee. He told TOC that his stall was not charged as it is under a different scheme since he only came in Feb this year. According to him, he pays around $3-4k, with the utilities being a varying factor of the monthly expenses.

And for the stalls that pay the $600 inspection fee, they told TOC that they also pay around $3-4k after the inclusion of the inspection fee. This begs the question of whether the $600 is to offset the cheaper rentals charged by Fei Siong under a different scheme.

Then, it also appears that the inspection fees imposed by Fei Siong are not uniform. A drink stall staff shared that their stall had to pay $1000 a month while the rest of the stalls pay $600 a month for inspection. When asked why the difference, she only shook her head and said, “It is just stated in the contract, nothing much to say.”

Perhaps it takes more efforts for Fei Siong to inspect drinks than food?

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

革新党肯尼斯昨从英国返新 需遵守14天居家通知

革新党秘书长肯尼斯惹耶勒南(Kenneth Jeyaretnam)近日刚从英国返新,必须执行14天居家通知,但届时他仍可授权一名代表完成提名程序。 据肯尼斯向《今日报》透露,他要求当局免去居家通知,但其请求未获得批准。 据卫生部和选举局昨日(25日)联合答复媒体询问时说,卫生部已评估肯尼斯提出免去居家通知的申请,但因公共卫生考量,而无法批准。 他必须和其他新加坡人一样,在指定的时间遵守居家通知,并接受冠病检测。这也意味着,他将无法在接下来两周内都走访选区。 询及如何让他签发授权书,也是一大挑战,卫生部和选举部表示已准备让肯尼斯与所需人员接触,以方便他签发授权书,以及作出法定声明,证明其提名文件中的陈述属实。 在国会选举(2019冠状病毒疾病特别安排)法令下,准候选人若须履行隔离令或居家通知,他可授权一名代表完成提名程序。该代表须有授权书,并且是有权投票的新加坡公民。 肯尼斯可以透过选举局网站,申请政治捐款证书和族群身份鉴定书,以及支付参选按柜金。 对此,革新党主席朱来成表示,肯尼斯必须在今日内提交政治捐款数和族群身份鉴定证书的申请表格,但碍于他无法通过酒店直接转交物品,因此朱来成指,他们也正在想办法。 至于填写提名表格仍须宣誓官的见证,朱来成表示,或许可通过视讯进行。 但另一个挑战是,若肯尼斯授权朱来成为代表,两人必须同属一个提名站,否则提名日当天,可能难以在一个小时内到两个地方。 询及革新党是否会让肯尼斯能够播出竞选广播而作出特别安排,朱来成仅表示拭目以待。…

Kenneth Jeyaretnam: Rule of Law – Dirty Tricks?

~by Kenneth Jeyaretnam ~ This is my comment on the attempted action…

TAN JEE SAY GOES ALL OUT

A commentary on Presidential candidate Tan Jee Say’s rally last night. —…

为无障碍斜坡项目与蔡荣良交锋 毕丹星称提出“体制上问题”

本月15日,工人党阿裕尼集选区议员毕丹星,以选区内一个无障碍斜坡工程项目为例,道出反对党选区议员提出项目提案,还得经由基层顾问检视、批准的弊病。 “一个简单、数月就可完工的无障碍斜坡,搞到要几年才完成。有多少乐龄人士、行动不便人士或康复者,无法从这类设施受益?” 他质疑行动党如何决定人民协会在反对党选区运作?也抱怨反对党议员提出的提案,往往都被人协忽略。 他认为,败选的前行动党候选人,可以继续透过这类提升项目与居民保持关联性,甚至可以说是在大选前的拉票,作为基层领袖他们也有权通过分配大笔纳税人公帑。毕丹星说,早在2015年大选,他就已非议行动党实施的这种政治双重标准。 至于阿裕尼集选区基层组织顾问蔡荣良,在本月19日发文反驳,表示对毕丹星对于上述无障碍斜坡项目发表不实言论“感遗憾”,也质疑后者借此事转移对工人党市镇会官司的注意。 在帖文中他指出,不管是人协、公民咨询委员会(CCC)、还是反对党议员,服务人民不应有所区分。 “但针对近期法院判决,我被许多居民询问,现任市镇会过去八年做了什么。与其执念于网上辩论,我呼吁所有人记住我们应以国人为优先,且更专注在问责他们的工作。” 对于有关无障碍斜坡,他解释那是公民咨询委会,在阿裕尼和后港选区展开的的社区翻新项目之一。 他也认为居民也应该看到自2015年大选以来,好些项目都已由公民咨询委会完成,如后港第一道118座组屋的有盖衔接走廊等。至于政府推展到阿裕尼集选区新捷运站、房屋改善计划(HIP)、邻里重建计划(NRP)等都让当地居民受惠。 “无障碍斜坡也由友诺士CCC提议” 蔡荣良更指出,有关无障碍斜坡也是由友诺士CCC提议的,“既然如此,那为何友诺士CCC还会刻意延迟项目?一旦获批,就一定会和人协确保项目完工。”借此反驳毕丹星指因为是反对党的提案所以延迟的说法。 他澄清有关斜坡是在2018年12月施工,并在今年移交给市镇会,惟间中确实承包商有要求再展延时间,不过就像其他CCC的项目,只要问题解决都会在合理的时间内完工。…