Introduction
Mr Speaker, it is without a doubt that Singaporeans love our hawker food, and it is something which we all hold dear and close to our hearts. Our hawker centres are deeply ingrained in our cultural identity and our collective memories, and these familiar communal spaces and their associated sights, smells and tastes are what makes Singapore feel like home for many of us. Just ask anyone who has been abroad for even just a week!
We are also passionately protective of our hawker food culture, to the extent that there is always some healthy debate among Singaporeans about which hawker stall serves the best Hokkien Mee, or for that matter, some friendly rivalry with our friends across the causeway about whether the KL-style Hokkien Mee with its thick egg noodles stir fried with black soy sauce is superior or the Singapore-style Hokkien Mee with a mixture of yellow wheat noodles and bee hoon, braised in prawn stock.
However, there could be little left to protect, with our hawker food culture at risk of eroding rapidly, and the sustainability and very existence of our hawkers under threat, if we do not take proactive steps to fix the current issues at hand and remodel the way our hawker trade is managed today.
On that note Mr Speaker, while I had initially wanted to raise this matter on a motion for adjournment, I support the Motion moved by Mr Leong Mun Wai to improve the prospects of hawkers so that we can sustain and grow our hawker culture and continue to enjoy good and affordable food. My speech today will touch on three broad points: addressing the business costs for hawkers, addressing the cost of living for Singaporeans and lastly on revitalising the industry.
Address the Business Costs for Hawkers
Operating costs and what’s controllable – rentals
The very existence of our hawkers hinges on whether it is sustainable for the hawkers to ply their trade, and operate a financially viable business. In recent years, there has been no lack of news about F&B operators closing, even some high profile hawkers whom many find surprising given their popularity with patrons. A recent example is Zhong Xing Foochow Fish Balls & Lor Mee in Bukit Merah, where the owners lamented that they had to close their 82 year old family run business, due to their old age, an impending doubling in rent and unwillingness to pass on higher prices to their regular customers, many of whom are the elderly.
Caught between rising costs and the difficulty or even reluctance in raising prices, many hawkers are simply finding it difficult to sustain a decent livelihood. Addressing the business costs for hawkers is thus a key thrust of my speech today.
Our conversations with hawkers suggest that rentals and their associated costs, raw materials and manpower are the key costs for running their business. The NEA noted from its survey that raw materials and manpower were the main cost drivers for stallholders in hawker centres, at 56% and 20% of operating costs respectively in 2022. However, it is important to point out that while the cost of ingredients is a key variable cost for hawkers, rentals represent a key overhead cost that imposes a high hurdle that hawkers have to overcome on a monthly basis, before they can even start making a profit, leading many to feel as though they are working for the landlord for a long time before working for themselves. And the cycle repeats every month, with many hesitant to take a long break as a result.
Importantly, rentals are a key cost component that we can influence and try to control, as opposed to raw material costs which are primarily dependent on global commodity price trends and may not be directly under the Government’s control.
Moreover, we see that even for the largest listed F&B companies in Singapore, their pre-tax margins hover between a low single digit margin and losses, and so for our hawkers operating at a much smaller scale, every single percentage point counts! Whether rentals represent 10% or 20% of operating costs, bringing rentals down by even a few percentage points from their total operating costs could mean the difference between shutting down or not. This is where I believe we can easily do more to better support hawkers.
Going beyond awarding stalls to the highest bid price – rental caps and PQM tenders
In my speech during the committee of supply debates earlier this year, I was comforted to hear that there was a rental cap for this year’s Geylang Serai Ramadan Bazaar, similar to that in 2019. To quote Minister of State for Home Affairs and National Development Faishal Ibrahim, “We hear you. For Bazaar Raya Geylang Serai 2024, we are taking steps to ensure that it is more affordable for our sellers and consumers”. Whether it’s the F&B stalls at the Bazaar or at our hawker centres, I believe the affordability concerns remain. Could we not adapt the same rental cap idea for our NEA-operated hawker centres?
With the rising cost of living hitting Singaporeans hard, measures ought to be in place to ameliorate the financial pressures experienced by hawkers whilst ensuring the affordability of hawker food for all.
In addition, I would also like to propose again we should phase out the price only tender system entirely. I am sure many of you would have seen the new record set for hawker rentals at Marine Parade Central Market and Food Centre, where the vacant unit #01-29 set a new record in the July 2024 tender at S$10,158 per month.
Whether or not the particular stall passes on the higher costs, which I believe is only logical, is one aspect of the problem. The other aspect is that if such a trend continues, this will have knock-on effects on the supposed market rate as determined by an independent professional valuation, leading to higher market rents and an upwards spiral for other hawkers as well.
Moving from a price only tender would reduce a significant amount of financial pressure for both hawkers and consumers, and also reduce the current environment that is favourable to large franchisors or those with deep pockets, as opposed to the enterprising and innovative hawkers starting out on their own.
The Price-Quality Method or PQM is a method which many town councils such as Sengkang Town Council routinely uses to evaluate tender bids in order to more holistically evaluate the merits of the proposals. In fact, the HDB is already evaluating the tenders for eating houses and food courts under the price-quality method. Why can’t we do the same for our hawker centres?
If it is implementation challenges that the NEA is concerned about, I would suggest that they work with the HDB commercial teams to understand how this is being done, for what is essentially the same trade. A hawker that I spoke to, who is very supportive of the PQM method, also suggested some factors for the NEA’s consideration, such as the pricing of their products, operating hours, whether they are young hawker entrepreneurs and the heritage value of the product to begin with.
Revert all SEHC to the NEA
At present, there are more than 100 markets and hawker centres managed by the NEA with about 13 Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centre (SEHC). I wish to reiterate a point raised in The Workers’ Party 2020 manifesto, which called on all hawker centres to eventually be brought under NEA control, as that would provide the necessary long-term assurance to hawkers that there are governmental levers of control over rents, not only today but also tomorrow.
The ultimate goal of the SEHC is to make a profit, and not provide a public good, hence hawkers are often at the behest of their SEHC operators. With operators having access to point of sales (POS) data, these operators are incentivised to maximise the rentals and occupancy costs of their hawkers, which while in the best financial interest of the SEHC operator, may not be in the interest of the hawkers and ultimately consumers. Such an environment will also not be conducive to creative budding entrepreneurs, but favour established chains with scale, and the lack of diversification of our hawker food mix may be a consequence. Having all hawker centres under the common management of the NEA also creates consistency in criteria, standards and policies for all hawkers to follow.
Questionable practices of SEHC
To be fair, I am not painting all SEHC operators with the same broad brush. But there are certainly some questionable practices of certain operators which require urgent attention today, even if plans for the centralised management of SEHCs are not implemented immediately.
Certain SEHC operators impose highly onerous contracts in the pages, which are to the detriment of hawkers rather than being supportive of them. These include monthly payments for an expensive POS system on a recurring basis compared to them purchasing their own at a lower cost over a period of time, strict terms and conditions including the imposition of liquidated damages for a long list of conditions such as business hours and stall closures without written notices, failure to support their loyalty app or even broad based terms such as the refusal to cooperate with the landlord. Are consumers and hawkers benefiting from some of these onerous terms?
I urge the Government to review the contractual terms and conditions between the SEHC operators and stallholders, to protect the welfare and interests of our hawkers.
Address the Cost of Living for Singaporeans
Next, I move on to addressing the cost of living for Singaporeans. Short of stating the obvious, we all need to eat and it is a matter of sustenance and survival. I believe the public do understand and appreciate that running a hawker stall entail rising overhead costs, along with other intangible ingredients such as long preparation hours, the years of honing and refining their recipe and craft, and the hot and sweaty work environment. Nevertheless, the increase in business costs borne by our hawkers has ostensibly trickled down to diners, who are already squeezed by rising costs elsewhere. This is best exemplified by the staggering 6.1% hike in hawker food prices in 2023 which, according to Singstat, could be attributed to higher input costs.
Budget meals – at whose expense?
The Government’s approach to tame the rise in hawker food prices is through the introduction of the Budget Meal Programme, which aims to have all 374 HDB rented eating houses provide at least 4 meal options priced at $3.50 and below and 2 drink items priced at $1.20 and below by 2026.
Our hawkers are trapped between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, they must contend with price hikes in raw ingredients and utilities, coupled with high rentals. On the other hand, seeing how price increases could potentially turn away customers whilst worsening the financial burden experienced by low-income patrons, many stall owners are hesitant about raising their prices. Now, with the requirement to sell their budget meals at a government-mandated “budget” price at the expense of their already-dwindling incomes, hawkers ultimately bear the biggest brunt of the Budget Meal scheme.
As lamented by a hawker interviewed by the Straits Times in an article dated, 1st June 2024, “It is impossible to make a profit from these meals”.
In an attempt to maintain their livelihoods, several hawkers have turned to other methods to cover costs from their budget meals, often at the expense of the meal’s quality. For example, there have been instances of budget meals with small portion sizes, while several have also noticed nutritionally imbalanced budget meal offerings with heaps of carbohydrates coupled with little to no proteins.
Our hawkers, many of whom are sole proprietors, should not have the Herculean task of shouldering the burden of providing Singaporeans with “cheap” meals to cope with the cost of living crisis. In fact, they should have the freedom of setting their own prices, given that they have an astute understanding of their business costs and the need to sustain their livelihoods, whilst keeping it affordable enough to ensure a steady flow of customers.
Instead of mandating the menu prices that hawkers should set, and having our hawkers shoulder the burden of addressing food costs, the Government ought to do more to ensure the affordability of hawker food, given that it has the capacity and resources to do so.
Targeted subsidies to those who need them most – use the CHAS card
The Government has introduced CDC Vouchers to be used at participating merchants, which would help reduce the out-of-pocket costs when purchasing food or groceries. Nevertheless, several residents have experienced difficulties when obtaining these vouchers, such as those who are living in another house from the one stated on their NRIC, those living in shelters, and those who face strained familial ties.
To ameliorate this, one suggestion would be to expand the preexisting CHAS card scheme to effectively cover meal discounts to residents. Aside from providing some relief to the cardholder’s medical bills, this scheme is already being used in supermarkets such as FairPrice to provide discounts to cardholders.
Similarly, cardholders who present their CHAS card at a participating hawker would be able to receive a discount on their food, the quantum of which corresponds to the colour of their CHAS card, whether it is blue, orange, or green. Importantly, the cost of these discounts should not be imposed on the hawkers, but on the Government instead. Rather than subsidise high net worth individuals or millionaires who, like low income households all receive CDC vouchers, the subsidy would be better directed to those who need them the most.
Such a move would help to minimise the administrative and operational costs in providing affordable meals by tapping on the infrastructure and systems of a preexisting scheme. Meanwhile, it would help to increase access to those who experience difficulties in obtaining and redeeming their CDC vouchers.
By enhancing governmental support to ensure affordable meals whilst securing the livelihoods of our hawkers, younger players could come in and rejuvenate the hawker scene, whilst bucking the trend of a rising number of veteran hawkers opting to call it quits and retire.
Reviewing food delivery platforms
Another means for hawkers to broaden their reach is by listing their business on food delivery platforms such as Foodpanda, Grabfood, and Deliveroo. Such platforms have also provided many of our residents, tired after a long day at work, easy access to tasty and delectable food right at their doorstep. This is especially prevalent in estates such as Sengkang, where many residents have turned to food delivery platforms due to the lack of coffee shops and hawker centres in the area. However, the hefty platform fees incurred by merchants on food delivery platforms have resulted in them either increasing their menu prices accordingly or opting to absorb it into their menu prices – which results in a decrease in profits.
In a Parliamentary Question filed in 2021, Minister for Trade and Industry Gan Kim Yong outlined that the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore will continue to monitor the food delivery sector for any anti-competitive practices.
A 2020 Zaobao article reports that the platform fees charged by the trio of Grabfood, Foodpanda, and Deliveroo – with market shares of 56%, 35%, and 8% respectively as of 2022 – hover at around 30% of the menu price. I believe this remains the case today.
Instead of adopting a heavy-handed approach to managing hawkers and the prices they charge, perhaps the food delivery platforms – who are in a financially stronger position – could be the ones subject to greater oversight by the government instead, especially with regards to the platform fees, which are hefty relative to food value.
Fee transparency is a key measure to ensure that competition can truly yield a fair platform fee for all hawkers and F&B operators, and level the playing field between sole-proprietor hawkers and large restaurant chains in dealing with these delivery platforms. Such a measure also helps customers understand the true costs of delivery and protect hawkers from hidden fees and charges.
While I appreciate the CCCS had issued interim measures directions during the possible acquisition by Grab of Delivery Hero’s business in Singapore, which did not materialise eventually, would the Government consider such a measure to help ameliorate the cost borne by merchants for their presence on such food delivery platforms?
Certainly, with greater oversight of the food delivery business, food establishments – especially our hawkers – could be provided with another means to grow their business and thrive, while providing consumers with another affordable dining option.
Revitalising the industry
Finally, Mr Speaker, I want to make the point that the Government must make revitalisation of the hawker industry a policy goal. When I say “revitalisation”, I mean it literally in that there is a decline that needs to be reversed. Too many indicators suggest that the industry is in trouble, not just financially as I have mentioned earlier, but also culturally.
For instance, the median age of hawkers was said to be 60 years old in 2019. The Government hasn’t to my understanding published any latest data on this since, but I don’t think the number has changed significantly. This means that half of Singapore’s hawkers are at most three years away from the current age of retirement.
This retirement of a whole generation of hawkers is also evident in the disappearance of Singaporean dishes. Kueh tutu, appam, satay beehoon, and Fujian oyster cakes are increasingly rare and are almost unheard of in new hawker centres. Food historian Khir Johari, in his book The Food of Singapore Malays, talks about dishes that have already disappeared, such as mee maidin and rujak su’un. Just as critically, he notes how corners are cut and old recipes are disregarded in Singapore food culture.
Rework the Hawkers’ Development Programme and Hawkers Succession Scheme
We need to recognise that the Hawkers’ Development Programme and Hawkers Succession Scheme do not work. I do not know of any other way to describe this, but we need to go back to the drawing board and examine the reasons for this and re-model the existing schemes which are no longer fit for purpose.
In response to my PQs, since the launch of the Hawkers’ Development Programme to much fanfare, 566 aspiring hawkers have enrolled, only 120 completed their apprenticeship, an even smaller number of 29 have started their business and only 16 of them remain in operation.
On the Hawkers Succession Scheme, since its launch on 1 January 2022, a grand total of seven veteran hawkers have signed up, and of these only two have completed the transfer of their stalls to their successors.
Preserving our hawker culture
While the role of hawker food in our economy may not change so quickly because the demand for low-cost food is always there, its role in our culture is undisputed. We must make sure we protect it for our future generations.
In 2020, UNESCO decided to inscribe our hawker culture on its list of Intangible Cultural Heritage. In our submission, it was highlighted several times that efforts are being made to pass on culinary practices to family members or apprentices, for instance through apprenticeship programmes.
One suggestion I hope the Government will seriously consider is for its programmes to be consolidated under a single, independent hawker academy. This was a suggestion mentioned in a related adjournment motion by my former colleague Leon Perera in 2021. Such a focal point for the hawker trade could provide more tailored support for hawkers, as well as streamline the role of the Government in its support for the hawker ecosystem. After all, the culinary and entrepreneurial skills of a hawker are not learnt the way one would learn a more academic subject.
Manpower challenges – what’s in a name?
Lastly, I would like to make a specific call for the rule allowing only citizens and PRs to work in hawker centres to be reviewed. This is a long-standing challenge faced by hawkers I talk to and represents a policy inconsistency. In Sengkang Grand Mall, Buangkok Hawker Centre is, as the name suggests, a hawker centre but for any other CapitaLand mall, this would be a food court and subject to a different set of rules. What’s in a name, one might ask?
Perhaps a middle-ground approach allowing hawkers above the age of 60 to employ one foreign work passholder at most per stall should be studied. I recognise that the Government has stated in its reply to a Parliamentary Question that it will “allow hawkers to hire LTVP or LTVP-Plus holders with Letters of Consent (LOC) or Pre-approved LOCs to work as their stall assistants. This policy will be effective from 1 Jan 2025”. However, I wonder how effective this would be, given that the LTVP is not intended for long term employment purposes at all, and we are looking at a limited pool of potential workers. Has the MSE quantified the impact of this move? As stated on the MOM’s website, the LTVP is for common-law spouses, step-children or handicapped children of an eligible EP or S Pass holder and parents of those earning over $12,000.
The move to allow the hiring of work passholders would benefit hawkers who find it difficult to open their stall every day at full hours, and these are also likely the hawkers who have been toiling in the most challenging of conditions day and night for decades, and many are likely to be one of our most loved hawker stalls with recipes that have withstood the test of time in a challenging F&B industry. After all, many restaurants, coffeeshops and food courts offering Singaporean cuisine rely partly on foreign labour to meet manpower needs.
Conclusion
To conclude Mr Speaker, I hope the Government can take proactive and concrete steps to address the business costs for hawkers, address the cost of living for Singaporeans and lastly to revitalise the industry we Singaporeans love the most, our hawkers.