The price of food is one of the most important issues any country will ever have to deal with. It is an absolute necessity and a commodity that everyone needs in order to live. It is on the premise of ensuring low and affordable food prices that NTUC Enterprise is proposing to take over food court giant, Kopitiam.

However, how will NTUC Enterprise be able to explain the raising of dish washing fees by 40 per cent to $580 a month by NTUC Foodfare? How does this action gel with its purported objective to keep the costs of food down? If the costs of operations for hawkers (of which dish washing fees are a part of) are increased, it will have to pass these on to customers. Wouldn’t this increase prices rather than keep them low?

One may argue that the hawkers can absorb the costs. However, it is important to remember that hawkers need to make a living too. The way to keep prices down is to ensure that hawkers do not have to pay exorbitant operational costs! An increment of 40 percent is also a significant surge. Is it fair to take over and present existing hawkers with a much higher invoice? Looking at this example, it just doesn’t add up. Is NTUC trying to create its own monopoly or is it trying to keep costs down?

Perhaps, our consumer watchdog should require NTUC Enterprise to submit a comprehensive report on how it can actually keep costs down. without concrete information to back up its claim of wanting to keep food prices down, how can we be sure that this will actually be done? Once a monopoly is formed, the consumer will have even less power to keep NTUC accountable as they will have less choice!

Further, what is there to stop NTUC from increasing the operational costs of hawkers thereby forcing them out? The hawkers do not have a union to represent their interests. Oh wait, I forget, NTUC is supposed to be a trade union! Is there no conflict of interest in this?

While each of these NTUC entities may be separate entities, they are all related companies which makes keeping each of them accountable difficult. Looking at how NTUC Foodfare has increased the prices for hawkers so shortly after taking over the Old Airport Road hawker centre, how can we be sure that NTUC Enterprise will not do the same for all of Kopitiam’s outlets after the planned acquisition?  I would really urge the anti-competition watchdog to seriously consider this.

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

Political elites are out of touch with ordinary Singaporeans

The irony of how the harder Singapore politicians try to show they know the needs and worries of ordinary people, the more apparent it is that they have become out of touch with realities on the ground.

报价比预算高55巴仙 内政部把造巡艇合约判给新科海事

2017年7月,新加坡内政部发布了建造警察海岸卫队(PCG)船艇工程的公开招标。 有关招标寻求承包商,协助建造12艘巡逻艇,提供15年后勤维修,也附设额外建造五艘和延长三年后勤保修的选项。 最终内政部决定,把工程合约判给新科工程子公司新科海事(ST Marine)。而淡马锡控股就是新科工程的控股股东。 根据本社取得的政府电子商务中心(GeBiz)采购招标文件,当时竞标者尚有其他五家公司:达门造船集团(Damen Shipyard)、来自台湾的龙德造船(Lung Teh Shipbuilding)、Naval Group Far East、Odyssey Marine以及新加坡的Strategic…

澄清与丈夫未参与有关项目 杨莉明发律师信要求指控者撤回言论

人力部长杨莉明,今日透过律师信,要求社运份子范国瀚以及名为Donald Liew的人士,撤回有关指责她与丈夫涉嫌从设立社区护理设施牟利的言论。 她在律师信的声明中澄清,有关项目是由盛裕控股集团,与卫生部和国家发展部直接洽谈。 “我与我的丈夫都未曾参与有关项目的授权或金钱交易”。因此,她反驳早前有关牟取暴利和贪污的指控是不实的。 另一方面,卫生部和国家发展部也发表联合文告,驳斥有关指控。 文告称,淡马锡接下任务时同意,该集团和相关公司,将以成本价或低于成本的价格完成任务,不会从中牟利。而淡马锡在确认了博览中心这个地点后,就要求盛裕集团协助,设立社区护理设施。 至于杨莉明表示,若对方撤回指控并道歉,自己无意继续追究此事或要求赔偿。与此同时,也要求上述二人捐赠1000元,给客工援助基金。

Ku Swee Yong: Less spendings as fewer visitors frequent malls

In the write-up by the CEO of International Property Advisor Pte Ltd,…