Food guru KF Seetoh from Makansutra wrote an open letter to Senior Minister of State Dr Amy Khor on Tuesday (9 Oct) imploring her to preserve Singapore’s public hawker centres. In essence, Mr Seetoh is against the government appointing a 3rd-party, the so-called “social enterprise” operator, to run publicly funded hawker centres.

In his letter, he told Dr Khor that hawker centres cannot be compared to private food courts. Mr Seetoh suggested that those Social Enterprise Hawker Centres (SEHCs) should be compared to the other 100 plus established NEA-run public hawkers centres instead.

“The difference is quite stark. Private food courts can charge and levy any amount they deem fit as it’s a private enterprise,” he noted.

In his letter, Mr Seetoh further shared more unfair practices adopted by some of the “social enterprise” operators against hawkers.

Dubious practices used by SEHC operators

Mr Seetoh highlighted the plight of a hawker operating a noodle stall at one of the SEHCs. After a year, the hawker decided to quit and give up their $4k a month stall as they could not sustain the business at the SEHC.

“To my horror, they are made to pay up the remaining years and months of rent and fees left in their contract, or till another tenant is found,” he said.

Also, note that the new tenant found is subjected to the approval of the operator. Since then, the hawker has moved out and started running his stall at a coffeeshop.

“They now have to pay up the monthly ‘penalty’ fees in the SEHC and also for rents (at) their new stall,” Mr Seetoh explained.

And, the one-sided contract also stated that the SEHC operator is entitled “at any time” and “from time to time” to increase service charges and monthly rental fees.

Mr Seetoh said, “This is rather ridiculous. Landlords do not charge tenants for standard contract offer letters in market practices. Worse, they say there’s even a clause that allow landlord to raise service and monthly fees anytime with given notice and that it is binding.”

Please Take Back Control of Public Hawker Centres, NEA

In his letter, Mr Seetoh appealed to the government to consider taking back control of the publicly owned hawker centres. He is of the opinion that the SEHC operators are not totally clear and mindful as to how hawker centres should be managed to public satisfaction.

“There are almost 30,000 hawker street food licenses in Singapore and only 6000 are sited in 114 public owned hawker centres. I urge NEA to run these 6000 like they always had, effectively and with minimal fuss, using even a market rate bidding system with minimal control on service and operation,” Mr Seetoh appealed.

“The NEA are trained to have Singapore Civil Service obligations when they run it. The private operators don’t. These 114 public owned Hawker Centres are created for, and powered by the people, which makes it such a great culture for the other 24,000 private stalls to emulate. Even our PM sees this as Unesco Intangible Award worthy.”

“These revenue hungry private operators can rightly do their commercial rental and operation model, on a mutually agreed buyer-seller agreements in the privately owned coffeeshops, food halls and markets, canteens, food courts etc.. but please keep them away from our public hawker centres,” he said.

“We have to preserve low operation cost so hawkers can comfortably offer cheaper meals for poorer customers in our midst who depend on it, preserve this food heritage and encourage a new breed of hawker to rise to the fore and address continuity and sustainability.”

In any case, with regard to the struggling noodle hawker who needs to pay a monthly “penalty” fee after abandoning his stall at the SEHC, Mr Seetoh has suggested to him to write to Dr Khor.

“I have suggested that this hawker write to you personally to share their struggles (and the likes of them) with you, so you can factor their concerns moving ahead as you craft even better policies for the public owned hawker centre operations in future,” Mr Seetoh appealed to Dr Khor.

However, it’s not known if Dr Khor would act on it to help the poor hawker, as she might just conveniently say it’s purely a commercial matter between the buyer and seller.

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

打脸总理选举承诺 民主党视频遭网民疯传

民主党秘书长徐顺全在本月2日上载一则视频,获得超过28万的高点击率,以及7千余次分享:视频内容针对剪接总理李显龙在2015年选举承诺,再对比新加坡人面对的残酷现实,引起不少国人共鸣。 这则题为“别随便说说”(Don’t Anyhow Say Things)的视频,开端剪接贸工部长陈振声,在演说时的一段话:“必须谨慎,不要因为是选举季节,就随便说说”。意思就是,政治人物要说到做到,不应随便许下承诺,但却没办法履行。 接着,视频就穿插人民行动党秘书长李显龙,在上届选举的演讲片段,针对其许下的种种承诺,配以国人面对现实处境,一一作出讽刺性的对比。 李显龙提及现今领袖,具备建国元勋的精神,但这段民主党制作的视频,即引用前任首席公务员严崇涛的说辞,指在早期,林金山和吴庆瑞博士从早忙到晚不求回报,但是当把部长薪资调高,情况就开始走下坡。 李显龙称确保建国一代和乐龄群体过上有尊严的生活,但视频引用李光耀公共政策学院黄国豪(译音)教授的说法,指乐龄打工群体的贫穷率显著上升;而今年的报导也显示年长者自杀率比往年高。 至于李显龙承诺提供年轻人可负担、能保值的房屋,国际可负担住宿调查就显示,我国的房产“严重不可负担”;而公共组屋屋契只有99年,到期后就归零。 至于我们的公积金,半数退休者甚至未达到最低储蓄额标准;在2017年,超过20巴仙毕业生近半个月找不到工作,以及我国千禧世代在2016年被评为对就业前景最悲观的群体。 此外,视频也抨击,当前新加坡人工时最长、工作压力最大;李显龙自称是国家的看管者,实则在实行贵族统治;以及年轻运动员无法获得国民服役延期,参加国际足球队等等问题。 李显龙:“所以我们和人民一起,解决生活成本问题,让生活更美好,减轻负担。”…

三地铁线故障 王乙康脸书发文致歉

地铁南北线、东西线和环线的服务,昨晚(14日)一度出现中断,晚间7时左右开始,SMRT即通过推特发文,证实这些线路受影响;陆路交通管理局发文告指出,初步调查显示,故障乃跳电导致。 因服务延误,为了疏散乘客,SMRT从晚上7时30分起,让南北线的乘客安全下车(Safe detrainment);环线乘客则在上8时进行安全下车程序。 对于此次严重故障事故,交通部长王乙康也在脸书发文,昨晚对于许多通勤者来说是“艰难且令人感到压力的”,他对于故障造成的不便和影响致歉。 他指出,故障出现后,即安排115辆接驳巴士和400名SMRT职员,协助和疏导那些受影响乘客。他也表示接到友人简讯,获悉有两名乘客感到不适,于是通知SMRT和陆交局去接应。 直到晚间10点34分,跳电电缆被隔开,地铁南北线和东西线列车服务才获恢复。王乙康也指工程团队已漏夜工作解决问题。 从昨晚网民分享的一些照片和信息,可得知一些地铁站停电,内里漆黑一片,一度受困的通勤者显得不知所措。当局也安排乘客安全下车,采用替代路线和接驳巴士。 Has been a rough and…

How do politicians walk together with citizens through troubled times when they don’t even acknowledge their troubles in the first place?

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has assured that Singaporeans affected by economic…

200万份政府文件仅解密8% 贝理安:即便调阅也要等批准

昨日,通讯及新闻部高级政务部长沈颖针对议员提问,透露国家档案馆的门户网页已经公布了16万份政府文件,供公众查阅。 工人党非选区议员贝理安(Leon Perera)在国会中,询及超过25年并且已在国家资料馆网页中公布的政府文件比例。他也问到,已经公开在线的25年以上文件,是否会在稍后进行重新审查,因为可能在未来,或许50年后,这些在25年来上载到线上的文件,会存在某些涉及个人敏感问题和保密义务。 沈颖指出,国家档案馆内,超过25年的政府文件,多达200万份。但是目前已解密的仅16万份,相当于8巴仙。 对此,贝理安在脸书就指出,1950-60年代和新加坡有关的英殖民时期文件解密,能为历史学者和群众了解当年我历史,提供宝贵的史料。 故此,他呼吁这些已解密文件,理应能让民间更自由地调阅,因为目前即便想调阅这些文件,都是有条件的,而且可能还要经过冗长的时间等待批准。 沈颖昨日在国会已澄清,并非所有文件都可以供公众查阅,尤其是国防、外交和内部安全,及可能受保密义务或涉及个人隐私的文件。 至于已解密文件,如果在网络上查看文件,在某些情况下必须拥有书面许可,有些则是给予有条件的许可。