KF Seetoh challenges Goh Hanyan’s defence of SEHC model, calls on government to “reset and rethink”

On 24 September, 2025, during a sitting in parliament, Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and the Environment Goh Hanyan defended Singapore’s socially conscious enterprise hawker centres (SEHCs). She said the model was designed to balance stallholders’ livelihoods with the provision of affordable meals, while granting operators flexibility to create sustainable business strategies. Goh stressed that the National Environment Agency (NEA) continues to provide oversight, ensuring that tenancy terms protect hawkers’ welfare while supporting public affordability goals.

KF Seetoh says NEA can run hawker centres more efficiently and at lower cost

Her comments drew sharp criticism from food critic and hawker culture advocate KF Seetoh, who urged policymakers to “hit the reset and rethink button.” In a Facebook post on 26 Sept, Seetoh questioned the decision to outsource hawker centre management to private operators instead of relying on the NEA, which he described as the most qualified and experienced operator of public hawker centres since their inception in the 1960s. Seetoh argued that private companies, many of which he described as commercial food hall operators with little public service background, were being paid millions to run hawker centres despite their lack of historical expertise. He claimed that NEA could manage these facilities more effectively and at lower cost.

Value meals and business pressures

A central feature of SEHCs is the mandatory requirement for each stall to offer at least one “value meal” priced between S$3 and S$3.60. Goh told parliament that hawkers were “not expected to make a loss” from these meals, as costs could be factored into rental negotiations. However, Seetoh dismissed this assurance as unrealistic, likening it to claiming that no one could lose money in cryptocurrency investments. He noted that hawkers also bear costs for digital payment discounts tied to operator-developed apps, with expenses passed back to stallholders despite government funding having supported app development.

Bukit Canberra HC controversy

The exchange took place following heightened scrutiny of tenancy terms at Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre. One contract clause required hawkers to provide free meals under a pay-it-forward scheme. After public criticism, operator Canopy Hawkers Group announced it would remove the clause from tenancy renewals starting this month. Goh clarified that stallholders had been informed of the scheme before rental agreements were signed, but confirmed it had not been implemented. She emphasised that mandatory “value meals” were separate from voluntary schemes like pay-it-forward initiatives.

Louis Chua questions NEA’s oversight role

On 24 Sept, Workers’ Party MP Louis Chua pressed Goh on how the NEA ensures hawkers are not unfairly saddled with costs for social programmes. He also questioned whether NEA officers were consistently present at contract signings. Goh responded that the NEA sets baseline conditions, such as limits on penalties and protection of stallholders’ rights, but allows operators to shape detailed tenancy agreements. She maintained that NEA officers attend signings to ensure transparency and would intervene if guidelines were breached. Another MP, Foo Cexiang, raised concerns about hawkers absorbing discounts offered through digital payment platforms. He noted that stalls selling higher-cost cuisine, such as Japanese food, might struggle to sustain mandated discounts. Goh replied that hawkers accept such schemes with full knowledge, while operators reinvest in publicity and promotions to drive sales.

Seetoh slams HDB for privatising coffeeshops, raising hawkers’ costs while prices stay low

Seetoh, however, rejected the notion that hawkers should be held responsible for subsidising low-cost meals for the public without direct government support. He argued that food and beverage profit margins are already thin and described the policy as “clueless,” adding that hawkers frequently complain of high gas and operating costs. He further criticised the Housing and Development Board (HDB) for selling coffeeshop spaces to private owners, saying hawkers under these arrangements face rising costs while being pressed to maintain low prices for some items. In parliament, Goh countered by highlighting NEA survey results from 2021 to 2024, which showed satisfaction levels above 80 per cent with SEHC management and stall occupancy rates of around 96 per cent. She said operators were also required to hold quarterly feedback sessions with hawkers, attended by NEA officers, to address ongoing concerns such as utilities pricing.

Calls for stronger safeguards

Workers’ Party MP Gerald Giam called for stronger oversight of tenancy clauses, citing risks of turnover-based rent models, mandatory supplier requirements, and punitive fees. He argued that many hawkers are low-income earners who should not bear such contractual risks. Goh acknowledged the concerns but reiterated that the SEHC model requires balancing flexibility for operators with protection for hawkers. She added that the government continues to fund hawker centre infrastructure, while operators are expected to reinvest part of their surplus into marketing and footfall initiatives.

Seetoh’s appeal for a reset

In his remarks, Seetoh dismissed assurances that hawkers “walk in with their eyes wide open” when signing contracts. He said hawkers often lack bargaining power and are left carrying the costs of schemes designed by private operators. “Do you have any idea what margins are like in the F&B business today?” he wrote, emphasising that the present system burdens stallholders with unrealistic expectations. He concluded by urging the government to listen to the voices of hawkers and the public. “Please… hit the reset and rethink button,” he said.