Hawker Culture

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

4.30 pm

Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That this House calls on the Government to review its policies relating to hawkers and the management of hawker centres to provide better support for hawkers to sustain and grow our Singapore's hawker culture so that Singaporeans can continue to enjoy good and affordable hawker food."

Sir, since 2020, our hawker culture has been recognised as a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Intangible Cultural Heritage. But have we provided enough support to our hawkers who are the creators of that culture? That is the question that prompted the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) to raise this Motion today.

The UNESCO accolade aside, hawker culture and hawker food are central to our Singaporean identity. Hawker centres, coffee shops and food courts are spaces for Singaporeans from all walks of life, rich or poor, regardless of race, language or religion, to interact and enjoy delicious, affordable food. It is a true melting pot for all Singaporeans.

It is one of the things that Singaporeans miss when they are overseas, myself included. While I was building my career overseas in 1990s, one of the things I missed most was a delicious bowl of laksa. In fact, I loved laksa so much that I had started a laksa stall in Tokyo in 2015 at the famous shopping district, Omotesando, in central Tokyo.

However, the hawkers who are behind the delicious local food that we enjoy have not been provided with sufficient support.

A hawker's life is a tough one. Not enough is done to address the hardship of our hawkers, who are burdened with the need to provide cheap food to the public, high rent, harsh work environment and arguably predatory management practices in the social enterprise hawker centres. We have a responsibility in this House to pass on our hawker culture to our future generations and to ensure that it not only survives, but flourishes, long into the future.

But our hawkers will need a lot of help and support at the national level to achieve this. We need to do more than putting up shows at the National Day Parade to celebrate our hawker food heritage.

The Government did not build any new hawker centres from 1986 until 2011. Since then, many Singaporeans, including those who know the hawker trade, have stepped forward to contribute good ideas to better support hawkers. However, besides the introduction of the social enterprise model, officially called the Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centre (SEHC) model, not much else has fundamentally changed about the way the Government manages hawkers. Many other ideas relating to building up the human capital of the industry and providing further support to hawkers have not been implemented.

I would like to acknowledge first the effort of those Singaporeans who had participated in the relevant discussions and research. I also seek their indulgence to use some of their ideas in the debate today.

Personally, the hawker trade is close to my heart. My late father was a hawker in Chinatown, the sole breadwinner for our family. My sister is a wonton noodle hawker today. I am deeply honoured to have the opportunity to speak up on this issue in this House today.

The PSP hopes that our Motion today will remind Singaporeans of the people behind the good and affordable food we enjoy every day. Some of these hawkers, advocates and supporters are with us in the House today, in the Strangers' Gallery, at my invitation. I would like to invite the whole House to join me in a round of applause to thank them for their hard work and their dedication to providing good food at affordable prices for Singaporeans. [Applause.]

Today, I will first discuss the importance of preserving and promoting our hawker culture before discussing the problems faced by hawkers. My colleague Ms Hazel Poa and I will then put forward possible policies to resolve these problems. These policy recommendations are based on the belief that the success of our hawker culture is inextricably tied to the success of our hawkers.

First, I will speak on the importance of preserving and promoting our hawker culture. The PSP believes there are at least four major benefits.

Firstly, hawker culture and hawker food is a rich heritage handed down by our ancestors that needs to be preserved and passed on to future generations of Singaporeans. The UNESCO recognition is an added reason for us to sustain this heritage.

Secondly, affordable hawker food has provided Singaporeans a buffer against the high cost of living in Singapore. The convenience and affordability of eating out also allowed many families to earn dual incomes. With millions of meals served to Singaporeans every day, hawker centres are the people's kitchens. To maintain them, we have to first help our hawkers to survive and thrive.

Thirdly, the hawker trade is one of the most conducive route for a budding entrepreneur to try out a business venture. I lived in Japan for many years, so I know of many Japanese who talked about starting a cooked food business as a business or hobby or just a place to meet friends and people. I am beginning to see this among some of our younger Singaporeans today. But their dreams are often hindered by the high entry cost to the hawker business.

I am confident that with lower rent and better working conditions, hawker centres can become incubators for our future food and beverage (F&B) entrepreneurs.

Last but not least, there are huge economic benefits if we promote our hawker food both domestically and internationally. As a parallel, Thai food has done very well globally. The number of Thai restaurants overseas has tripled from about 5,000 in 2002 to 15,000 in 2024. But a large part of their success is due to strong government support, such as in training chefs, providing loans and conducting market research to advise chefs on how to appeal to foreign tastes. Thai dishes often rank among the top in global culinary surveys, overshadowing our local dishes. I have been unhappy for a long time that chicken rice is recognised more as a Thai dish than a Singapore dish in Tokyo.

There is no reason why Singapore hawker food cannot be as world renowned as Thai food. The well-reviewed Urban Hawker in New York, curated by Mr KF Seetoh, is an example of the success we can achieve if we do more as a nation to promote our hawker food overseas. We can extend our soft power by winning the hearts and minds of people all over the world through their stomachs. This is another example of how we can punch above our weight.

However, despite all the significant cultural and economic benefits that hawker culture can bring to us, it may wither in the future without policy adjustments to provide greater support to our hawkers. A serious examination of the problems faced by hawkers and new policies to address these problems are long overdue.

The crux of the problem arguably is that the Government expects hawkers to provide cheap food as a safety net amidst the very high cost-of-living environment in Singapore. Yet at the same time, the Government has created a high-cost environment for hawkers to operate in.

PSP calls for a holistic and comprehensive review of the hawker trade by the Government, which should cover all hawkers operating in hawker centres, coffee shops and food courts. We do not know how long more we can sustain our hawker culture because of the many challenges faced by hawkers. These challenges can be grouped into four areas: one, hawker centre management, which includes problems with the social enterprise hawker centre model; two, high rent and other operating costs; three, harsh working conditions leading to shortage of manpower and successors; and four, the expectation to provide cheap food, which is partly encouraged by the Government.

I will start by discussing the first problem of hawker centre management. There are more than 120 hawker centres in Singapore today. Out of these, 12 are managed by private operators under the social enterprise model, as of 31 December 2023. Since the introduction of the social enterprise model in 2012, we have seen multiple conflicts between hawkers and social enterprise operators because of the high costs and onerous contractual conditions, compared to the National Environment Agency (NEA)-operated hawker centres.

For example, in 2018, the hawkers of the Jurong West Hawker Centre filed a petition against a 20-cent tray return surcharge imposed by Hawker Management, a social enterprise operator and subsidiary of the Koufu Group. It was also reported publicly in June 2024 that the hawkers of Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre tried to lower costs by asking the operator to let them use a cheaper gas provider, but they were denied.

Based on replies to my past Parliamentary Questions (PQs), we know that the median rent at social enterprise hawker centres is about 5% higher than the median rent at NEA-operated hawker centres. However, auxiliary costs at the social enterprise hawker centres, such as table cleaning fees, dishwashing fees, Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CCs) and pest control fees, can add up to as much as the rent itself.

Hawkers in social enterprise hawker centres also face many hidden costs. For example, they must bear the costs of offering loyalty discounts, budget meals and subscriptions to food delivery platforms. All these are part of a long list of onerous contractual obligations on hawkers who may have to pay damages or receive demerit points if they fail to meet these requirements.

Following the outcry in 2018 against the social enterprise operators, NEA reviewed the key contractual terms between such operators and their stallholders and asked operators to make changes with effect from 1 January 2019. However, the contractual terms seem to have continued to be very onerous, as I have confirmed in a contract signed by a hawker of a social enterprise hawker centre in 2022.

Over the years, the officeholders have repeatedly come out to say that the social enterprise model is sound, working well and has benefited hawkers and customers. But it is a sign that things are not going well when many more hawkers of social enterprise hawker centres are terminating their contract earlier, compared to hawkers of NEA-operated hawker centres.

From 2019 to 2023, the average annual early termination rate for food stalls at social enterprise hawker centres was 8%, more than twice as high as the 3% early termination rate at NEA-operated hawker centres. The social enterprise model is arguably not helping to sustain and grow the hawker culture.

I have done some calculations on the potential cost burdens imposed on hawkers by social enterprises. For example, it was reported that JW Heritage, another social enterprise operator and a subsidiary of the Chang Cheng Mee Wah Group, paid $4.86 million to the Government to manage the Jurong West Hawker Centre when it reopened in 2023. Since there are 39 stalls there, this contract price translates into a cost of $125,000 per stall. This cost represents a huge cost burden which must be recouped either from the stallholders or customers.

But is it justifiable for private operators to extract surpluses or profits from hawker centres which are public assets, even if 50% is required to go back to programmes that benefit the hawker centres and hawkers?

The PSP recommends that the current social enterprise model be phased out, as the contracts of the current operators expire. This will eliminate the problems in social enterprise hawker centres. PSP proposes that hawker centre management be taken over by a new Government agency tentatively called Hawker Singapore. This agency can be formed by transferring the current Hawker Centres Group of NEA to it and then further expanding it.

Hawker Singapore will oversee the management of all hawker centres in Singapore and the promotion of hawker culture domestically and internationally, working together with other relevant agencies, such as the Singapore Tourism Board and Enterprise Singapore. It will work with hawkers in each hawker centre to develop its own unique value proposition within the general guidelines laid down by itself. We envisage that Hawker Singapore will be advised by an independent industry expert panel to formulate strategies, finance expansion and assist hawkers to professionalise their business. We also propose that Hawker Singapore should set up a hawker academy to be a focal point for training young hawkers. Former Member, Mr Leon Perera, had raised this in this House in 2021 and PSP supports this suggestion.

A hawker academy will provide training and succession planning for hawkers, set standards for the hawker trade and help to preserve a selection of heritage foods that are important to our different communities.

In addition to centralising the management of all hawker centres, I will present three more policy recommendations to deal with the three other problems I discussed earlier. These recommendations will provide the impetus to preserve and grow the hawker trade in a sustainable way.

Firstly, to deal with the problem of high rent, the Government needs to move away from the practice of setting hawker stall rents by tender. While rent may not be the biggest cost item for a hawker, it is the biggest burden because it is a fixed cost. Hawkers can save on variable costs but not fixed costs. Only the pioneer cooked food hawkers who were resettled from the streets get to enjoy subsidised rentals between $192 and $384 per month at the NEA-operated hawker centres. They represent about 30% of the hawkers today.

The non-subsidised stalls which account for 70% of the hawkers must pay market rent determined via the tender system where stalls are rented out to the highest bidder.

In 2023, the median monthly rent for non-subsidised stalls at NEA-operated hawker centres was $1,625 per month but bids frequently exceeded that, especially for stalls in better locations with higher footfall. One successful tender recently exceeded $10,000 per month. While allowing bids to hit new records through the tender system, the Government also reduces a tendered rent to an assessed market rent when the hawker renews his contract after the initial three-year period. In other words, from the fourth year onwards, the $10,000 bidder will pay a much lower rent for the same stall.

Last week, the Government announced that it would prolong the time required to adjust the tendered rent to the assessed market rent so as to deter excessively high hawker stall bids. This latest change shows that the Government is aware of the problems of the current system. However, the question of why such a system still exists remains.

The current tender system has the negative effect of driving up headline rentals in hawker centres. This can have a ripple effect on the rents and values of Housing and Development Board (HDB) coffee shops. Several HDB coffee shops have been transacted at multi-million dollars in recent years bought by large business groups. A record price of $9,361 per square foot was set in 2022 by the Chang Cheng Mee Wah Group when it bought a Yishun coffee shop for $40 million. Such high market prices for coffee shops have been a major cause of the rising cooked food prices and cost of living in Singapore.

The PSP recommends that we move away from the tendering model altogether. Instead, we propose a more flexible rent model, with the aim of lowering rent and curbing excessive speculation in coffee shops. Under this rent model, all hawker stalls will be charged a monthly base rent of $500 or 3% of gross turnover, whichever is higher. Stalls will be allocated by a random ballot within each food category curated by Hawker Singapore under the advice of the independent industry panel.

Currently, NEA has five categories of stalls: cooked food, halal cooked food, Indian cuisine, drinks and cut fruits. We suggest adding a sixth category, namely, heritage foods, to ensure that as many traditional foods unique to the different races in Singapore as possible are preserved. For example, it would be nice to see a revival of Eurasian food in our hawker centres. Later, my colleague Ms Hazel Poa will present a possible model for curating hawker stalls.

PSP's proposed rental model is skewed to support smaller hawkers with lower rentals. It will lower the barriers of entry for new hawkers and thus enhance the sustainability of our hawker culture. At the same time, it will not price out hawkers who are successful in growing their business.

Secondly, we need to adjust the manpower policies for hawkers to deal with the problem of manpower shortage and the lack of successors. The hawker trade is physically demanding, taxing on their health and even dangerous, especially for elderly hawkers. Hawkers must deal with long working hours. For example, to serve the breakfast crowd at 6.00 am or 7.00 am, the hawkers must wake up at 1.00 am or 2.00 am. Floors in hawker stalls are slippery or oily and hawkers must work around hot oil, knives and choppers. There have been many accidents involving hawkers.

In September, it was reported that a famous Chinatown claypot rice hawker, Uncle Hong, decided to retire because of complications after he fell and broke his pelvic bone. Mr Tan Hock Guan who ran the Michelin-recognised Guan Kee Fried Kway Teow stall in Ghim Moh also retired last November when he fainted while frying kway teow. All these are not new to me. I have witnessed, as a child, the many accidents and hardships experienced by the Chinatown neighbours of mine who are hawkers. Some might have made some money but, usually, they had to retire relatively young due to various ailments.

For hawkers, additional manpower can help to reduce their workload and prolong their working life. However, apart from hawker stall owners, few Singaporeans would want to work at a hawker stall. In this case, a Work Permit holder will complement our current hawkers without threatening the job security of Singaporeans.

Therefore, PSP recommends that each cooked food hawker stall, including drinks and cut fruit stalls, should be allowed to employ one Work Permit holder as a stall assistant. This is not a completely new policy because the Government already allows companies operating coffee shops and food courts to hire Work Permit holders.

PSP also believes that the recent move by the Government to allow hawkers to employ Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) holders as stall assistants will not be adequate to address the manpower problems of the hawkers. It is difficult to understand why coffee shop and food court operators are allowed to employ Work Permit holders but individual hawkers are not.

Our policy proposal will not undermine the Singaporean character of our hawker centres because only one Work Permit holder is allowed per stall. On the other hand, our proposal will reduce the workload of senior hawkers and allow them to continue their trade for a longer time, while we encourage our younger Singaporeans and second-generation hawkers to enter the hawker trade with our new rent structure and training at the new hawker academy. This provides more assurance that our hawker culture remains sustainable.

Thirdly, to keep hawker food affordable in the immediate future, the Government should provide targeted discounts for needy groups and adjust the “budget meal” policies that have emerged in recent years. The Government has introduced the “budget meal” initiative, possibly to insulate Singaporeans from rising costs in other areas like housing, Certificates of Entitlements and healthcare. Social enterprise hawker centres and some HDB coffee shops already contractually force stallholders to sell budget meals, usually at $3 or $3.50. By 2026, all stalls in rental HDB coffee shops will be required to sell these budget meals.

The problem is, all these “budget meals” are paid by the hawkers. Hawkers in social enterprise hawker centres are also forced to provide discounts, at their expense, to Pioneer, Merdeka and Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) cardholders.

I do not believe there is any other industry where we contractually force suppliers to sell items below a certain price. When HDB rents out shop spaces for supermarkets in the new estates, for example, HDB does not contractually force the supermarket operator to sell some budget food items below market prices. So, why do we require this of our hawkers?

Every cent earned by the hawkers is hard-earned money. Half of the stallholders in the hawker centres are lower-income Singaporeans who received the Workfare Income Supplement in 2020. These hawkers are in no position to do charity and should not be forced to do so.

Hawkers should be allowed to determine their own prices, which should not be controlled by the Government or operators. They deserve to be fairly remunerated and incentivised to sell good and affordable food to Singaporeans. It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that food remains affordable.

We propose that discounts for Pioneer, Merdeka and CHAS cardholders should be paid for the Government, for example through the funds in the Pioneer or Merdeka Generation Funds. These discounts should be available for food at all hawker centres.

The Government can also provide lower-income households with more Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers so that they can use these vouchers to pay for their hawker meals.

Sir, in closing, our hawker culture is a precious inheritance from our Pioneer generation which we should preserve and grow. The UNESCO accolade has given us an added reason to do so. However, high operating costs and harsh working environment have deterred younger Singaporeans from entering the hawker trade while existing hawkers are ageing and retiring. As a result, our distinctively Singaporean hawker culture and food are fast disappearing. The Government’s policy responses to these problems so far are too little and too late.

I have shared four policy changes to improve the prospects and livelihoods of our hawkers so that they are motivated to professionalise, innovate and sustain our hawker culture.

Firstly, PSP recommends that the social enterprise hawker centre be phased out and the management of hawkers centralised under a new government agency called Hawker Singapore.

We also propose a new rent model which will charge lower rent and is intended to have ripple effects on rents in coffeeshops and food courts.

Next, we propose allowing each hawker stall to employ one Work Permit holder as stall assistant.

Finally, instead of forcing hawkers to provide “budget meals” at their own expense, the Government should pay for targeted food discounts for Pioneer, Merdeka and CHAS cardholders at all hawker centres and provide lower-income households with more CDC vouchers.

My colleague Ms Hazel Poa will speak on two other policy proposals later on centralising procurement of essential ingredients and revising the Code of Conduct for Leasing of Retail Premises.

PSP believes that our six proposed policy changes will re-invigorate our hawker culture and allow it to shine brightly on the global culinary scene. At the same time, it will ensure that the hawker centre, the people’s kitchen of our nation, will provide us with affordable food for many more generations to come. Only then can we say our hawker culture has truly lived up to its reputation as a UNESCO Intangible World Heritage. Sir, I beg to move. For country, for people.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.

5.08 pm

Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion raised by my colleague Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Many Singaporeans are extremely concerned about the cost of living. The cost of food, including hawker food, is a big part of such concerns. Out of the hundreds of complaints about price increases received by the Committee Against Profiteering, most are about food prices.

For generations, hawker centres have been an essential place for working-class families to access delicious and affordable food in Singapore, and we should keep it that way. To do that, not only do we need to keep the cost of hawker food under control, we also need to ensure that the overall hawker industry remains vibrant and being a hawker is a viable and sustainable livelihood for Singaporeans. That is why in our Motion statement today, we have emphasised that we must improve the prospects of hawkers so that we can sustain and grow our hawker culture and continue to enjoy good and affordable food. The policies we propose today will improve the prospects and livelihoods of our hawkers and ensure that hawker food remains affordable for Singaporeans in the longer term.

Take for example our proposal of a fixed rental structure. Currently, stalls are allocated to the highest bidders in tender exercises. This is generally held to be the economically efficient approach. However, PSP believes that the allocation of essential goods and services needs to account for other non-economic factors.

The subsidising of public housing, public transport and healthcare are examples of considering both social and economic factors in essential goods and services. We believe that hawker food qualifies as another case deserving special consideration.

We have therefore proposed that the allocation of hawker stalls should not be based on highest rent tendered. Instead, we propose a pre-determined rent structure to keep rental cost under control. We believe that this proposal will be a game-changer for hawkers. A reduction in rents in hawker centres will also have an anchoring effect on rents in privately-operated food courts and coffee shops. This will benefit all Singaporeans.

If rent is not the mechanism used to allocate hawker stalls, how should they be allocated? We have said earlier that one way to do so is by random ballot. Another possible way is to allow the customers to decide.

For example, for hawker centres located near HDB flats, let the residents living nearby vote for their desired stalls through a small food fair or competition. Hawker Singapore will ensure that the stalls that are chosen can still meet the needs of different ethnic groups. PSP believes that getting the stakeholders involved in the decision-making will lead to a more optimal outcome. We can first implement this on a trial basis at a few hawker centres to determine its feasibility before extending it to all hawker centres.

Next, I want to reiterate that PSP firmly believes that it should be the Government’s responsibility to ensure that food remains affordable, not the hawkers'. We therefore propose that, instead of compelling hawkers to offer budget meals to everyone at their own cost, the Government should pay for targeted food discounts at hawker centres for Pioneer, Merdeka and CHAS cardholders, and lower-income households. The Government can also provide lower-income households with more CDC Vouchers to pay for their hawker meals. This will provide vulnerable groups with some much-needed assistance in the short term to ensure that their meals remain affordable. This approach ensures that assistance is more targeted at the more vulnerable. The Government’s current “budget meal” approach, however, is open to all.

In the past, we have argued for basic goods and services to be exempted from the Goods and Services Tax (GST). The Government’s response has always been that this would also benefit the rich, and targeted vouchers and rebates are better. Therefore, I am sure the Government can understand how the hawkers feel when they see customers visibly better off than them financially, buying budget meals from them. Is this not a case of double standards? How is this fair to the hawkers?

Secondly, PSP’s approach ensures greater fairness to all vulnerable Singaporeans, not just those staying near the social enterprise hawker centres or rental HDB coffee shops.

Thirdly, our proposal is more sustainable because it will be funded by the Government instead of the hawkers themselves. As my colleague Mr Leong Mun Wai has explained, the “budget meal” initiative is being paid for by hawkers themselves, but many of them are themselves lower-income Singaporeans who are not in a good position to pay for such initiatives.

I would like to share another proposal by PSP to lower costs for hawkers and keep hawker food affordable for Singaporeans.

We can set up a centralised procurement system where the new agency, Hawker Singapore, can contract with wholesalers to supply hawkers with ingredients that are commonly used by hawkers, such as cooking oil, rice, flour, sugar, salt and eggs, at lower prices through bulk purchasing. Hawkers have the option to get their supplies through such arrangements or they could still choose to use their own suppliers if they think that it is of better quality or it gives them some other competitive advantage.

Currently, we already have a company, ALPS Pte Ltd, that purchases drugs, medical and non-medical supplies and equipment, and services for Singapore’s three public healthcare clusters. Last year, PSP had called on the Government to centralise drug procurement across all public and private medical institutions and distribute drugs to public and private health facilities on a not-for-profit basis.

It would not be a huge stretch to set up a similar centralised procurement system to bulk buy all the essential raw ingredients used by hawkers in Singapore. We believe that such a system would have a very substantial impact on reducing the cost of living in Singapore.

I would like to emphasise that no hawker will be forced to get their supplies through PSP's proposed centralised procurement system. Additionally, the Government will not provide any subsidies to hawkers through this system. All savings will come from bulk purchasing the ingredients from wholesalers.

We have received feedback that, currently, some SEHC operators require hawkers to purchase supplies, such as gas and crockery from designated suppliers. This has caused unhappiness in cases where the designated suppliers charged a higher price than free market. We believe that such provisions in the rental contracts are unfair to hawkers and provide potential for abuse and profiteering. Landlords should not be specifying who their tenants should be buying from.

We propose that the Code of Conduct for Leasing of Retail Premises be revised to explicitly cover hawkers and prohibit all such practices. Contracts that deviate from this must seek the tenant's agreement and be submitted to the Fair Tenancy Industry Committee, as is the existing practice. Mr Speaker, Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] For many years, hawker centres have played a crucial role in the lives of many Singaporeans, serving as places where we can obtain affordable food. In 2020, hawker culture is inscribed onto UNESCO's Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

To ensure that hawker culture can be preserved and continue to develop, PSP puts forward a Motion on hawker culture, calling on the Government to review its policies relating to hawkers and the management of hawker centres. This is to address the various issues currently faced by hawkers, ensure that the industry can attract the next generation of Singaporeans and ensure that prices at hawker centres remain affordable for the public.

To improve the prospects and livelihoods of hawkers and to ensure that hawker centres can continue to provide affordable food, PSP today proposes six recommendations.

First, we propose to gradually phase out social enterprise hawker centres and centralise the management of all hawker centres under a new Government agency called Hawker Singapore. In addition to managing hawker centres nationwide, this agency will also be responsible for actively promoting hawker culture both domestically and internationally, in collaboration with other relevant agencies such as the Singapore Tourism Board and Enterprise Singapore.

Second, we propose to stop the current practice of awarding stalls to the highest bidder. We suggest setting the rent at $500 per month or 3% of total turnover, whichever is higher. We believe that under this rental model, most hawkers will pay lower rents. Lowering rents at hawker centres will also help to reduce rents at private coffee shops and food courts, thereby lowering the cost of living for all Singaporeans.

If stalls are not allocated based on rent, how should they be allocated? We propose two methods. The first is random balloting. The second is through customer voting. For example, Hawker Singapore could organise tasting sessions, inviting nearby residents to sample and vote to determine the winners of stalls in neighbourhood hawker centres.

Third, we propose that the Government allow hawkers to hire one Work Permit holder as a hawker assistant to alleviate manpower shortages.

Fourth, in recent years, social enterprise hawker centres and HDB-leased coffee shops have successively mandated hawkers to provide "budget meals" at their own cost. PSP does not oppose budget meals, but we believe they should be funded by the Government. Many hawkers do not earn high incomes and they work hard for their money. They should not be forced to provide budget meals at their own cost. We believe a better approach would be for the Government to pay for targeted discounts or meal vouchers for those in need.

Fifth, we propose that the Government establish a centralised procurement system, contracting with wholesalers to supply hawkers with commonly used ingredients such as cooking oil, rice, flour, sugar, salt and eggs at bulk prices. This will help lower the prices of cooked food, thereby reducing the cost of living for all Singaporeans.

Sixth, PSP has received feedback that some operators of social enterprise hawker centres currently require hawkers to purchase gas and crockery from designated suppliers at higher prices, causing unhappiness. We believe such provisions are unfair to hawkers and could potentially be abused for profiteering. We suggest amending the Code of Conduct for Leases of Retail Premises to prohibit such practices.

We believe that the six proposals we put forward today will effectively lower the cost of living for Singaporeans and strengthen the sustainability of our hawker culture. We hope the Government will seriously consider implementing the recommendations we have proposed today.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, PSP understands that many Singaporeans, especially the lower income and the elderly are extremely concerned about the cost of living.

Over the years, affordable hawker food has been one of the major ways through which the cost of living has been kept in check for Singaporeans. We recognise the importance of this. As circumstances change, we need to adjust our policies to ensure that hawker food remains affordable in a sustainable way.

We believe that our six proposals will substantially help lower the cost of living for Singaporeans while ensuring that being a hawker remains a viable and sustainable livelihood for Singaporeans. We hope that the Government will seriously consider these proposals.

Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

5.22 pm

Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, the Motion being moved today is for this House to call upon the Government to review its policies relating to hawkers and the management of hawker centres to provide better support for hawkers to sustain and grow Singapore's hawker culture so that Singaporeans can continue to enjoy good and affordable hawker food.

Mr Speaker, I am glad that PSP's Motion acknowledges three important things: first, that our hawker centres are places where good and affordable food is accessible to all; second, that it has gone beyond the provision of food and become a culture; and third, that these two things need support in order to sustain and grow.

These acknowledgments are testimony to the success of the Government's approach because our beloved hawker centres and the special role that they play in Singaporean life is a result of the People's Action Party (PAP) Government's policies and support over the years. From the early years when roving hawkers were brought into centres built specially for them and supported, the expansion of hawker centres into the heartlands, the Hawker Upgrading programmes and so on; evolving over time until they have become treasured institutions that they are today, even to the extent of achieving UNESCO Cultural Heritage status and being much in demand in our new housing estates.

Mr Speaker, hawker centres are a Singapore quintessential. They have a very special place in our Singapore psyche, having filled our tummies over the years with warm familiar foods and our hearts with much warmth and comfort. I believe every Singaporean has a lovely, bittersweet, maybe even milestone defining, memory tied to our hawker culture. Perhaps a first date over rojak, a serious sibling discussion over claypot rice, a "lao di fang" Tiger beer hangout spot with friends. Our Singaporean lives are intertwined with the safe spaces offered by hawker centres and, of course, by the familiar faces of our favourite hawker uncles and aunties.

However, this was not always the case in Singapore. It may seem inconceivable to many, but what we recognise as hawker centres today, did not exist until the 1970s. In fact, hawker centres are a fairly new construct. Prior to hawker centres, our hawkers existed in our community as street vendors. It was not too long ago that street hawkering was still seen as a public disamenity and this is still a Singaporean living memory. I recall that, as a child, my uncle telling me one evening that he was unsuccessful in procuring his satay at Glutton's Square as the street hawkers had fled, in front of him, from special squads of illegal hawker inspectors.

Indeed, it was this Government, right after our Independence in 1965, that recognised the collective value of our street hawkers. This Government rolled up its sleeves and started the hard work of licensing and organising our 18,000 street hawkers into safe trading spaces with access to water, storage and sanitation.

It was also this Government, together with the HDB in the 1970s, that did something quite extraordinary and innovative. While organizing street hawkers, the HDB had the eureka moment of also planning, into our HDB estates, nearby access to organised hawker services, thereby sparking the Singaporean hawker culture that we all know and love today.

Mr Speaker, even with these changes, throughout the years, one thing remains constant: our hawkers never had it easy. In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Even with these changes, throughout the years, one thing remains constant – our hawkers never had it easy. In the early years, our street hawkers made their living in extremely difficult conditions. However, as times changed, even after the establishment of hawker centres, hawkers still needed to work long hours, starting early and finishing late, to fulfil their commitment to the community. Many hawker brothers and sisters have to wake up at 3.30 am to start preparing ingredients, so they can open their stalls before 7.00 am to serve residents going to work and school, and they can only close after the last customer leaves in the evening. Just think about it – that is a workload of 18 hours a day, six days a week.

Our hawkers soldier on because they are committed to serving our community and the residents in our estates. Our hawkers are proud of the hawker trade and it is because of this that Singapore's hawker culture has been listed in UNESCO's Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

Hawkers affect the lives of Singaporeans in many ways. You have touched our lives and shaped our Singaporean way of life with your care, and your legacy will be carried on for many generations.

(In English): Mr Speaker, many hawkers toil day in and day out with the repetitive work of a hawker, such as frying hundreds of plates of, say, char kway teow, a day to just give us more wok hei. This has caused our hawkers back and hand injuries, sometimes even permanently damaging their nerves.

Our hawkers experience bar rot, which is an itchy, painful hand fungal infection due to wet work surroundings, washing produce and cleaning our utensils. Our hawkers soldier on because they are committed to serving our community and the residents in our estates. Our hawkers are proud of the hawker trade and it is because of this and their hard work that Singapore is now a UNESCO site for cultural heritage. To this, I thank our many hawker brothers and sisters in the gallery for accepting our PAP Members' invitation to be here with us today.

And to all our hawkers and friends listening in, watching this Parliamentary debate: your resilience, your care and your dedication to our community, Singapore thanks you. [Applause.]

You have touched our lives and you have shaped our Singaporean way and know that your legacy will continue to touch our lives to many, many generations to come.

Looking ahead, I think we can all agree that we must see how we can continue to support our hawkers. As consumer preferences, workforce demographics and business models evolve, so must our hawkers and the hawker trade. We need to keep a steely eye on the win-win national desires of providing affordable food for Singaporeans, with supporting the lives and livelihoods of our hawkers. Our hawkers and F&B owners have spoken: long hours, rising business costs, an ageing workforce and pressures from costs of living are at the top of the mind for our hawkers.

Number one, rising business costs. For hawkers, business costs stem mainly from raw materials, manpower, utilities, rentals, platform delivery fees and shared services, like dish washing and tabletop cleaning. Hawkers have told me that they face up to 40% increases in raw material costs and many are still calibrating with their service providers on keeping the costs down. Over at the Labour Movement, we are keeping an eye on ensuring that Progressive Wage Model moves in the cleaning and food services industries are fairly shared amongst stakeholders as uplifting lower-wage workers are a whole-of-community effort.

Number two, pressures from costs of living. Our hawkers, being at the frontline to keep daily meals affordable, are often caught in budget meal crossfires and are sometimes left holding the ground on budget meal prices, unsure of where to look for wider community support. In speaking with hawker centre and food court operators, like NTUC Foodfare, I note that budget meal innovations have been introduced. For example, the Rice Garden by Fairprice Group Initiative by Foodfare provides budget meals to CHAS and COMCare card holders, with prices controlled by Foodfare. Other local initiatives, like our CDC Vouchers and Punggol Shore's Care Voucher Programme works hand in hand with stall operators in providing for the community.

Mr Speaker, hawker centres were created out of a national win-win desire to provide Singaporeans with convenient access to affordable, delicious meals within safe, clean spaces for all to bond; while at the same time, allowing our hawkers access to a ready pool of captive customers, a place to trade safely, while enjoying the economies of collective scale. As a nation, we have continued to keep a very watchful eye on this win-win national desire, even as we continue building up, adding to and innovating the rich hawker culture we have. Indeed, the constant reviewing and taking in feedback from hawkers and stakeholders ensure that our hawker culture continues to hit home right.

Mr Speaker, in my walkabouts and chats with our One Punggol Hawkers, I believe that what we really need is a many-helping-hands approach if we, as a community, agree that our hawker culture is quintessentially, Singaporean. I learnt from Wei Siang, who has recently quit his job as a cabin crew to join his family's business selling Ah Balling at our One Punggol Hawker Centre, that in the business model of centralised dish washing, prevalent at many hawker centres now, that the stall owner would likely need to pay, on top of a monthly service fee for dishwashing, a standardised rate for each bowl that is being used.

This means, for every empty bowl that a patron of the stall requests from the stall owner, the stall owner would incur another around 10 cents, 20 cents, maybe more, per bowl charged to them by the dishwashing vendor. Wei Siang shares that this eats into the already slim profit margins of his sweet glutinous rice ball soup and, as such, he has to sometimes charge patrons extra when they request for more bowls. This has led to some very unkind comments in his Google reviews.

Yes, I did read up on the reviews and these are what some of the public comments are: "Would not recommend. The seller was quite unreasonable and trying to overcharge an additional bowl", one out of five stars for service review; "Bad attitude! Very stingy on bowls. Do not visit! Spend your money somewhere else", one out of five stars overall review. Wei Siang was obviously upset and hurt with these reviews, and I can understand why.

However, I am also glad to note that there are progressive and supportive stakeholders too. I spoke with several cleaning and dishwashing service providers and found out that they, too, understand the difficulties faced by our hawkers and have, on their own accord, created programmes to support our hawkers.

Chye Thiam Maintenance, for example, provides 100 free bowls for patrons which they put at different collection points in a hawker centre and tops this up during peak periods. NTUC Foodfare, after receiving feedback, has also put a hard cap on chargeable bowls for hawkers.

Mr Speaker, the examples that I have brought up, no doubt, point towards the viability of the Singaporean hawker industry when the system works together, positively and towards win-win outcomes. Over the years, we have seen many happy outcomes from running a hawker business.

My friend Valerie and her brothers, Adrian and Pathom, who are up in the gallery today, are fourth generation owners of Xi De Li. Their great-grandparents fried you char kway as street hawkers in the 1920s. Xi De Li moved from street vending into hawker centres and over the years, took on you char kway OEM contracts, supplying to other stalls and restaurants. They now have their own factory producing 10,000 sticks of you char kway daily. Valerie tells me that she is thinking about venturing overseas and has innovative product development plans, such as making a Singapore-version of churros from you char kway. Indeed, the Labour Movement is now assisting her in her optech roadmap and the use of technology to upskill her workforce.

Like Valerie's parents, grandparents and great-grandparents before her, many of our hawkers have done well for themselves and passed on their legacies to their families. Some of their children choose to leave the family trade and pursue interests in the arts, law and engineering, others like Valerie and her brothers have chosen to stay and to continue as pillars in this industry.

You know what? Valerie is in good company, very good company. She is part of Food Gen 2 (食二代), which is a grouping of second-generation F&B owners and some running companies spanning over five generations. They are a very strong, close group of 100 members, making positive strides on the ground towards a sustainable and strong future for F&B and our hawker culture. They are here in the gallery today to lend support to our hawkers. Thank you. [Applause.]

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would summarise my points as follows. Our current dynamic hawker landscape is a result of the hard work and dedication of hawkers, as well as many policy reviews and innovations by the Government working with the community over the years. Hence, I wholeheartedly agree that we should continue to review our policies relating to hawkers and hawker centres. But at the same time, to be fair, we should also recognise that much have been done over the years, in terms of policy and support and this is a continuing journey.

The second point is, everyone, not just the Government, has a part to play in supporting our hawkers and sustaining and growing our hawker culture. I call on the Government, Singaporeans, the Labour Movement, operators and service providers, to continue exploring new and innovative ways in which we can support our hawkers. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.

5.38 pm

Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak on this Motion from the perspective of someone who has spent years working alongside hawkerpreneurs in my various roles, first as an entrepreneur and now as a Member of Parliament and grassroots advisor. Defending Singapore's hawker culture and hawkerpreneurs's livelihood is a deeply personal matter to me as I have experienced first-hand the grit, determination and passion of our hawkerpreneurs and have close friends in the ecosystem.

As such, I have personally experienced several reviews that led to tangible improvements. Our hawkerpreneurs are everyday heroes who toil over their hot stoves to provide all of us with affordable and tasty meals. I would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to all hawkerpreneurs, past and present and, especially, those who are with us in the gallery today.

From my direct engagement with hawkerpreneurs, it is clear that the two largest cost drivers are the cost of raw ingredients and manpower, not rent, as is commonly perceived and acknowledged by Member Mr Leong Mun Wai as well. Based on data shared by hawkerpreneurs whom I met recently at Senja Hawker Centre, ingredients make up 50% to 60% of their total costs, manpower accounts for 15% to 25% and rental constitutes around 10%. This means for every serving of hawker meal we order for $4, $2 to $2.40 is paid to ingredients suppliers, 60 cents to $1 for manpower and 40 cents is paid for rental. There are other miscellaneous expenses, such as transport and utilities. The actual net profit margin that our hawkers earn is as low as 20 cents to 40 cents per serving. This breakdown highlights the thin profit margins and underscores the importance of addressing the need of our hawkerpreneurs to earn a decent livelihood.

To illustrate the challenges with ingredient costs on the ground, allow me to share about Mr Zuhairi, who runs Project Penyek at Senja Hawker Centre. Mr Zuhairi shared that customer preferences for certain parts, such as thighs over breast meat, lead to imbalances and wastage. Unsold breast meat at the end of the day has to be discarded, increasing the cost of goods sold significantly. He mentioned, "When customers ask for more thighs, I worry about the breast meat that may go unsold. Any wastages directly affects my earnings." These days when I order Ayam Penyet at his stall, Mr Zuhairi will jokingly ask me "Breast or thigh?" I will obviously reply "Chicken breast".

Mr Zuhairi also shared that in recent years since COVID-19, the cost of fresh chicken has risen from $3.50 to $4.50 per kilogrammes and the price of chilli has nearly tripled, from $2.50 to $6 per kilogrammes. Mr Zuhairi orders chilli to make tasty sambal that goes perfectly well with his Ayam Penyet. But Mr Zuhairi expressed anxiety over customers requesting extra sambal chilli sauce, which they expect at no additional charge. With margins already slim, such additional requests further strain finances. He shared, "I want to satisfy my customers, but giving more chilli without charging increases my ingredients cost."

Mr Speaker, these anecdotes may seem trivial to some, but I felt that it is important to share the ground concerns and anxieties of our hawkerpreneurs. These are issues we may not think of as consumers when we buy our food. Thankfully, Mr Zuhairi shared that ingredients prices have stabilised. This signals that the monetary measures, such as strengthening the Singapore dollar put in place by the Government, have helped.

With regard to Member Ms Hazel Poa's suggestion on centralised procurement at hawker centres, I would like to share that operators have explored these ideas, but certain challenges make it difficult to implement. First, hawkerpreneurs' ingredients are highly varied, with many different stock keeping units. For example, even something as simple and common as rice, comes in various types and grades, complicating central procurement and bulk purchasing efforts. Second, many hawkerpreneurs have longstanding relationships with their suppliers and prefer to maintain these trusted connections.

Another key challenge that hawkerpreneurs face is the cost and lack of manpower. As part of our national commitment to uplift lower-wage workers, manpower costs have increased. Hawkers are now offering salaries ranging from $2,600 to $3,200 for stall assistants, but there are very few local jobseekers interested in these positions, due to the demanding nature of the work and long hours. Local jobseekers are also needed in other sectors, such as childcare and healthcare.

Recognising these challenges, during one of my catchups with hawkerpreneur friends – one of whom is Mr Noorman Mubarak, founder of Nasi Lemak Taliwang – they suggested allowing them to hire Long-Term Visit Pass Plus (LTVP+) holders to alleviate the manpower shortage. I felt that this was a good suggestion, as LTVP+ holders are part of the Singaporean family. Allowing hawkers to hire LTVP+ holders will balance both the need for an additional pool of workers to hire, mitigate concerns that our hawker centres should be distinctively Singaporean and provide additional job options for Singaporean families.

As a follow-up, I submitted a Parliamentary Question in August, urging the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) to allow hawkers to hire LTVP+ holders. I am pleased that following this, Senior Minister of State Dr Koh Poh Koon announced in the last Sitting, that hawkers can now employ LTVP+ holders as stall assistants. [Applause.]

As shared earlier, this policy change not only provides hawkers with an additional pool of manpower, but also increases job opportunities for LTVP+ holders, who are often family members of Singaporeans.

I note that some hawkerpreneurs have asked to be allowed to hire foreigners on Work Permits. We are mindful of community concerns about allowing more foreigners to work in hawker centres. Hansard records from 2010 and 2011 reflect concerns over the influx of foreign workers in hawker centres, with residents noting issues, such as language barriers, cultural differences and variations in service standards.

In the Parliamentary Sitting on 1 March 2010, then-Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, acknowledged these concerns, "Some Members have raised concerns about the increasing presence of foreign workers in hawker centres, which may affect the ambience and character of these places. To strike a balance, NEA allows hawkers to employ a limited number of foreign workers as assistants, subject to certain conditions to ensure that the character of hawker centres is maintained."

Member Lim Biow Chuan expressed during the 5 March 2010 Sitting, "Many residents have given feedback that the presence of foreign workers affects the traditional feel of our hawker centres. There are also concerns about communication difficulties and differences in hygiene practices."

It is important to acknowledge these concerns and strive for a balance between addressing manpower needs and preserving the authenticity of our hawker culture. The recent policy to enable hawkers to hire LTVP+ holders demonstrates that reviews are conducted continuously, taking the manpower situation and cultural attitudes into careful consideration.

Next, I would like to speak about the management model of hawker centres. The SCHC model has been subject to much discussion in the past and in today's debate. It is essential to share some sentiments of hawkerpreneurs presently. One that I know very well is the Senja Hawker Centre in Zhenghua. This is a new hawker centre managed under the SCHC model. The FairPrice Group is the appointed management company by NEA.

I would like to share with the House the experience of Ms Angeline, a first-time hawkerpreneur at Senja Hawker Centre who sells local delights, such as Hokkien mee and carrot cake. At the start, Angeline faced several challenges. She needed guidance to navigate various licensing matters, such as understanding which licenses were necessary and figuring out how to set up a utility account. Employment laws and finding reliable supplier contacts were also obstacles along the way. But she was not alone. The centre manager from the SCHC operator became a vital source of support, helping her through each requirement. In her own words, she shared, "Without the support of the centre manager, I would have felt lost and it would have taken me much longer to start my business."

Such support is invaluable, especially for the next generation of hawkerpreneurs, who may not have the industry knowledge and networks that veteran hawkerprenurs have built over the years. With the guidance of dedicated centre managers, new hawkerprenuers like Angeline are better positioned to navigate these challenges and build successful businesses.

SCHC operators also assist in procuring shared services, such as centralised dishwashing. This has significantly alleviated manpower challenges as they are not required to wash dishes themselves. The dishes are cleaned by a third-party vendor.

Hawkers at Senja Hawker Centre expressed satisfaction with these services. Mr Yeo, a senior hawker who owns Yong Feng Ji Chicken Rice, shared that centralised dishwashing saves them time and allows them to focus on cooking and serving their customers.

While SCHC has brought clear value to most hawkers, some have also provided feedback on areas of concern with the SCHC model. For instance, the operational hours minimum requirements can be rigid, making it challenging for a single-operator stall to comply. It gets harder to comply when hawkers face manpower challenges and need time for personal exigencies.

On the other hand, the minimum operating hours requirement is to ensure that there are sufficient choices for patrons and minimum vibrancy. It is challenging for the management to attract footfall to a centre if there are insufficient stalls open for business. Hawkerpreneurs benefit from increased footfall.

I believe that a genuine solution is to find a realistic fit somewhere between these two expectations and every single hawker centre will be different due to local community needs. Instead of perceiving the SCHC model as the boogeyman, we need to solve the real challenge: how do we fine-tune the model to meet the needs of our hawkerpreneurs and the communities they serve?

Taking a leaf from PAP's tripartism, we can extend hawkerpreneurs' representation under the SCHC model to a similar model to that of existing hawkers' and merchants' associations. This provides an opportunity for collective feedback from hawkerpreneurs to SCHC operators and NEA to co-create industry standards around contractual matters and ground issues that align hawkerpreneurs with local needs.

The SCHC model definitely has value and it is the hawkerpreneurs informing us about how things are better for them. But this does not make us complacent. Let us work together with the operators and hawkerpreneurs to make continuous improvements.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to ensure our hawker culture thrive, it is crucial that our hawkerpreneurs can earn a sustainable income. Rising costs of ingredients and manpower costs continue to erode their already slim profit margins, leaving little for their own livelihood. Our hawkerpreneurs provide incredible societal value by offering affordable food to Singaporeans. To truly appreciate the affordability of our hawker food, let us compare it to street food prices in other major cities around the world, relative to the median incomes in those cities.

In Singapore, the median monthly wage in 2023 is about $5,197 and a typical hawker meal costs around $5. This means that a hawker meal represents roughly 0.1% of the median monthly income. Consider Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia, where the median monthly wage in the same year is approximately $1,901 and a street food meal costs about $2.90. Here, a meal accounts for around 0.26% of the median income. More than twice that of Singapore. Moving to Hong Kong, the median monthly wage is about $3,378 and a simple street meal can cost around $8.50, making up about 0.25% of the median income.

Even in Western cities like New York City, where the median monthly wage is about $6,626, the cost of a basic meal represents a larger proportion of the median income compared to Singapore. In New York, a street meal costs around $13.00 and takes up about 0.2% of the median income.

Earlier, Mr Leong Mun Wai referred to the hawker stalls at Urban Hawker in New York, curated by Mr KF Seetoh. It is laudable that our hawker food has been brought overseas. However, I read in a report by local news site Mothership and also CNA, that chicken rice and prawn mee sold by Urban Hawker in New York cost about $25 and $26, much more than the same dishes cost in Singapore. The Mothership article also reported that hawkerpreneurs in New York cited high rental, ingredients and manpower costs and other challenges. Sadly, at least one hawkerpreneur has closed since. I was told that more have closed in recent months.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what this shows is that the cost of food and business operating costs are common to all cities, Singapore included. But yet our local hawker centres are still able to provide us with affordable meals.

I am aware and empathise with residents who think of affordability based on what they used to pay, rather than what others in other countries have to pay. However, such economic data points across cities provide a clear reality of our comparative situation. Notwithstanding this, our hawkers provide high-quality, diverse and delicious meals at prices that are a fraction of what people pay in other global cities. This affordability is Singapore's unique social compact forged out of a vocation to feed the nation, but it also underscores the financial pressures hawkers face.

As we reflect on Singapore's social compact, let us also take a moment to consider how each of us can contribute to helping our hawkerpreneurs earn a fair and sustainable livelihood. Hawkers have expressed that while customers are willing to pay $15 for a bowl of ramen, they hesitate to pay $5 for a handmade bowl of fishball noodles. I believe that as a deeper appreciation of our hawkerpreneurs grows, the consumer will respond to pricing favourably because they know and understand what it takes to deliver good hawker food. We must support them to ensure they can continue this vital service without compromising their livelihoods.

On the Government's side, one particular initiative that has balanced affordability with accessibility well is the Government's CDC Vouchers. Hawkerpreneurs at Senja Hawker Centre shared that these vouchers contributed to approximately 10% of their revenue, which is significant. The CDC Vouchers have directly provided Singaporean households with more to spend at the hawker centres. Hawkerpreneurs at Senja Hawker Centre shared that the vouchers not only increased their sales but also introduced new customers to their stalls.

In a recent catch-up with Mr Melvin Chew, who is the founder of Hawker United Dabao 2020 Facebook group that has more than 330,000 members and also the owner of Jin Ji Teochew Braised Duck and Kway Chap – and I understand he is here today and I want to acknowledge his presence – which is located at Chinatown Complex Market and Food Centre, he shared candidly that the CDC Vouchers have been extremely helpful for the patrons in Chinatown as many are seniors who have retired. He has witnessed seniors holding stacks of CDC Vouchers as well-wishers donate CDC Vouchers to them and seniors can now gather to enjoy a nice tze char meal instead of being restricted to just budget items.

There are also many notable examples of Pay It Forward initiatives in hawker centres around Singapore. This example shows that Singaporeans can align local initiatives to show their support for those with less.

I hope that we can provide more CDC Vouchers to resource low-income families and our seniors who are mostly retired. Providing additional vouchers to them ensures they continue access to affordable meals and it supports hawkers by increasing patronage.

In Zhenghua, we have also introduced $1 deals as part of our local initiatives. Every month, Zhenghua residents can purchase $1 deals and in December alone, nearly 1,000 hawker meals were sold at just $1 each. Hawkers receive the full value of the meal as our community funds tops up the difference. These deals were fully sold out in three days. My grassroots team and I are now exploring ways to expand this initiative so that even more hawkers and residents can benefit.

Corporations can also play a significant role in supporting our hawker culture. Notable initiatives like DBS' "5 Million Hawker Meals" programme offer $3 cashback for PayLah! users at participating hawker stalls. The scheme encourages users to dine at hawker centres.

These programmes underscore that much has been done to support our hawkerprenuers and ensure that food remains affordable. It takes a whole-of-society approach to support our hawkerpreneurs. From Government policies to corporate initiatives and consumer's attitudes, everyone has a role to play in sustaining this vital part of our culture.

As such, Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I propose amendments to the Motion?

Mr Speaker: Can I have a copy of your proposed amendments?

5.57 pm

Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui: Yes, Sir. [A copy of the amendments was handed to Mr Speaker.]

Mr Speaker: The proposed amendments submitted by the Member are in order. Do you have copies available for other Members?

Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui: Yes, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Can we distribute those? I will give some time for the copies to be distributed before you move your amendments. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

Mr Chia, I have also frozen the time clock. It is not eating into your speech time, although you are getting close to the 20 minutes.

Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui: Thank you very much, Sir. Thank you.

Mr Speaker: Alright, I think all Members have received a copy of your amendments. Mr Chia, you may move your amendments.

Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the following amendments:

First, "In line 1, to delete 'review' and insert 'continue its support for hawkers by regularly reviewing'".

Second, "In line 2, to delete the words ‘to provide better support for hawkers’ and insert ‘which will help’".

And third, "At the end of line 3, to add ‘while enabling hawkers to earn a fair livelihood’".

Mr Speaker: You can proceed with the rest of your speech.

Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui: Mr Speaker, Sir, our hawker centres are integral to Singaporeans' way of life. They are places where we connect, share and celebrate our diverse heritage. Let us work together – the Government, businesses and citizens alike – to ensure that our hawkerpreneurs can make a fair livelihood and that everyone can enjoy affordable food. This will ensure that our hawker culture thrives for generations to come. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: There are three amendments proposed by the Member to the Motion.

Amendment No 1: "In line 1, to delete ‘review’ and insert ‘continue its support for hawkers by regularly reviewing’".

Amendment No 2: "In line 2, to delete the words ‘to provide better support for hawkers’ and insert ‘which will help’".

Amendment No 3: "At the end of line 3, to add '‘while enabling hawkers to earn a fair livelihood’".

It may be convenient that the debate on the original Motion and on any other amendments moved by Members be proceeded with simultaneously as a debate on a single question. Do I have hon Members' agreement to this?

Hon Members indicated agreement.

Mr Speaker: The question is the amendments as moved by the Member. Mr Louis Chua.

5.59 pm

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): 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 make 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 Kuala Lumpur-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 a similar matter in an Adjournment Motion, I will still cover the same points in my speech today on three broad areas: addressing the business costs for hawkers, addressing the cost of living for Singaporeans and, lastly, on revitalising the industry.

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 and 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 for raw materials and manpower are the key costs for running their businesses. 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 our 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 to make 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 even losses. 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 our hawkers.

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 the 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 is the F&B stalls at the bazaar or at our hawker centres, I believe the affordability concerns remain. Could we not adopt the same rental cap idea for our NEA-operated hawker centres?

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 just 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 upward spiral for other hawkers if this persists 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 (PQM) is a method which many Town Councils, such as Sengkang Town Council, routinely use to evaluate tender bids in order to more holistically evaluate the merits of the proposals. In fact, HDB is already evaluating the tenders for eating houses under the price-quality method. Why can we not do the same for our hawker centres?

If it is implementation challenges that 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 whom 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.

At present, there are more than 100 markets and hawker centres managed by NEA with about 13 SEHCs. 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 an 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 even 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.

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 terms and 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 regularly review the contractual terms and conditions between the SEHC operators and stallholders to better protect the welfare and interests of our hawkers.

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 entails rising overhead costs, along with other intangible factors, 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 the Singapore Department of Statistics, could be attributed to higher input costs.

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 four meal options priced at $3.50 and below, and two 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 1 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.

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 National Registration Identity Card, those living in shelters and those who face strained familial ties.

To ameliorate this, one suggestion would be to expand the pre-existing 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. Whether it is blue, orange or green, the quantum of discount would then correspond to these different levels. 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 pre-existing scheme. Meanwhile, it would help to improve 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.

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 PQ filed in 2021, Minister for Trade and Industry Mr Gan Kim Yong outlined that the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) 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 regard 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 ultimately materialise eventually, would the Government consider such measures to help ameliorate the cost borne by merchants for their presence on such 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.

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 has not, to my understanding, published any updated data on this since, but I do not 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 certain Singaporean dishes. Kueh tutu, appam, satay bee hoon and Fujian oyster cakes are increasingly rare and 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 Singaporean food culture.

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, 120 completed their apprenticeship and an even smaller number of 29 have started their business and a mere 16 of them remain in operation. Of 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.

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 sub mission, 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, Mr 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.

Lastly, I would like to make a specific call for the rule allowing only citizens and Permanent Residents (PRs) to work in hawker centres to be reviewed. This is a long-standing challenge faced by hawkers I talked to and represents a policy inconsistency.

In Sengkang Grand Mall, for example, 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 pass holder, at most per stall, should be studied.

I recognise that the Government has stated in its reply to a PQ that it will "allow hawkers to hire LTVP or LTVP+ 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, potentially, a limited pool of workers. Has the MSE quantified the impact of this move? As stated on the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) website, the LTVP is for common-law spouses, step-children or handicapped children of an eligible Employment Pass or S Pass holders and parents of those earning over $12,000.

The move to allow the hiring of work pass holders 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, coffee shops and food courts offering Singaporean cuisine rely partly on foreign labour to meet manpower needs.

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.

While we had intended to support the Motion, as filed by the Member Mr Leong Mun Wai. Based on my very quick perusal of the amended Motion by Member Mr Edward Chia, I believe that is something that we can support as well, given the points covered in my speech, namely the impact on the hawker themselves and consumers, and on revitalising the industry. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.

6.22 pm

Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, hawker food is now a critical source for most Singaporean's daily meals, especially, for families who do not often have home-cooked meals.

Hawker centres, that are located amidst our residential heartlands, are an integral part of our food landscape. More importantly, affordable hawker food offers a sustainable option for low-income families and seniors.

When I was still a student, I used to help at my aunt's Marine Parade laksa stall, not the same one as Mr Leong's laksa stall, during my school holidays. I witnessed the challenges she faced, the very long hours she had to work, and only having one rest day a week. Their daily revenue is unpredictable as their earnings will naturally be affected whenever business is bad. Nevertheless, her laksa business has managed to assist my aunt's family financially. When she retired, only one of her six children was willing to continue with the business. As expected, my cousin had to sell the business as the third generation was not keen to take over. As a matter of fact, most elderly hawkers are retiring without any succession plans.

Understandably, compared to the first- and second-generation hawkers, their children are now exposed to better employment options and opportunities with more rewarding salaries and progressive career prospects. Given the evolution of this business and the challenges ahead, we would need to assist these hawkers.

One challenge would be the lack of people willing to work as hawkers. There are several initiatives already implemented by the Government to help existing hawkers better cope with the labour shortage. For instance, the joint tenancy scheme allows hawkers to work shorter hours and share rental cost with co-tenants. Also, to alleviate manpower shortage, stall holders can now hire from a bigger pool of LTVP holders. They can hire family members who will be more willing to work long hours and are more committed to help sustain the business. Apart from that, centralised common services scheme like dish washing, clearing of crockery and cutlery, and general cleaning can reduce the manpower required.

On the payment mode, digitalisation initiatives, such as cashless payments and the CDC vouchers have also helped to reduce the stall's cash management. As a result of such labour reduction initiatives, many stalls can now be managed by two or for some, even one person.

The second challenge is to offer hawker food at affordable prices without compromising the quality. Older hawkers live in older housing estates such as Old Airport Road, Tiong Bahru, Geylang Serai and so on. Most of the famous and popular hawker stalls including Michelin Bib gourmand stalls are often found in these older hawker centres. Most of these older stalls are able to sustain well. After a 26-year pause, in 2011, NEA restarted the building of 20 new hawker centres.

With the additional and sudden surge of so many new hawker centres, operating costs in these new hawker centres tend to be higher. Hawkers will have no choice but to pass on the increased operating cost to the consumers. Otherwise, many stalls in these new hawker centres will find it very challenging to operate. We have received numerous feedback from residents about the price increase in hawker meals. This price increase has caused a heavy strain on them. Most affected are from the low-income families, retirees and students.

To address their concerns, our local MPs have been working closely with the hawker centre operators, to try to keep meals affordable for residents. In Sembawang Group Representation Constituency (GRC), Kampung Admiralty Hawker Centre and Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre were opened in recent years and are managed by SEHC operators.

In Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre, all 44 stalls offer $3.50 budget meals and the meals' quantity and ingredients are usually more budgeted as well to fit into the price cap. Seniors holding the blue CHAS, Pioneer and Merdeka Generation cards will receive a 10% discount. Students under the age of 18 will also get student discounts during weekday afternoons.

In Kampung Admiralty Hawker Centre, local schemes such as Belanja-A-Meal, provides low-income families with affordable meals. Thanks to contributions from fellow residents and generous donors, low-income residents on Belanja-A-Meal scheme can each enjoy 10 free meals monthly. These local schemes do help some residents who are most affected by recent price increases. Many are appreciative of the support provided. My fellow GRC MP, Ms Mariam Jaafar, will later share more, in her speech. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to say a few words in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] After a 26-year hiatus, NEA resumed efforts in 2011 to build 20 new hawker centres. With the addition and sudden surge in the number of new hawker centres, operating costs at these hawker centres have risen further. Hawkers have no choice but to pass on these increased operating costs to consumers. As a result, many stalls in these new hawker centres face significant challenges in operating.

We have received much feedback from residents about the recent increase in hawker food prices. These price increases places tremendous pressure on them. The most affected groups include low-income families, retirees, and students.

To address their concerns, our local MPs have worked closely with hawker centre operators to try to ensure that food remains affordable for residents. In Sembawang GRC, the Kampung Admiralty Hawker Centre and the Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre were opened recently and are run by socially-conscious enterprise operators.

At the Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre, all 44 stalls offer budget meals priced at $3.50. Senior citizens holding blue CHAS cards, Pioneer Generation cards and Merdeka Generation cards will receive a 10% discount. Students under 18 years old will also get a student discount during lunchtime on weekdays.

At the Kampung Admiralty Hawker Centre, local schemes such as Belanja-A-Meal provide affordable food for low-income families. With contributions from residents and generous donors, low-income residents under the Belanja-A-Meal scheme can enjoy 10 free meals per month. These local schemes help some of the residents most affected by recent price increases. Many appreciate the support provided. My fellow MP, Ms Mariam Jaafar, will elaborate further about this initiative.

(In English): It is a matter of reality that first- and second-generation hawkers will retire and, sadly, some original and authentic hawker recipes, together with certain Singapore hawker culture, will gradually fade. It is definitely not easy to sustain and grow our hawker culture in this rapidly changing environment. Nevertheless, I believe the hawker culture is an important part of our cultural heritage and more must be done.

The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) had made a commendable effort in December 2020 for Singapore’s rich and vibrant hawker culture to be recognised in the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. This recognition has raised awareness about the importance of preserving and growing our hawker culture.

The Hawkers' Development Programme, which trains and mentors potential hawkers, was launched by NEA in 2020. In 2022, the Hawkers Succession Scheme was launched to help retiring veteran hawkers pass their culinary skills, recipes and hawker stalls to aspiring successors. Unfortunately, the take-up rate for these schemes to establish a more systematic framework to attract and develop aspiring hawkers is still low till date. We need to push harder in order to entice young hawkers into the trade with more creative incentives.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to share a few points in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] It is a matter of reality that first- and second-generation hawkers will retire and sadly, some original and authentic hawker recipes together with certain Singapore’s hawker culture will gradually fade. It is definitely not easy to sustain and grow our hawker culture in this rapidly changing environment. Nevertheless, I believe the hawker culture is an important part of our cultural heritage and more must be done.

MCCY had made a commendable effort in December 2020 for Singapore’s rich and vibrant hawker culture to be recognised in the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. This recognition has raised awareness about the importance of preserving and growing our hawker culture.

The Hawkers' Development Programme, which trains and mentors potential hawkers, was launched by NEA in 2020.

In 2022, the Hawkers Succession Scheme was launched, to help retiring veteran hawkers pass their culinary skills, recipes and hawker stalls to aspiring successors. Unfortunately, the take-up rate for these schemes to establish a more systematic framework to attract and develop aspiring hawkers is still low to date. We need to push harder in order to entice young hawkers into the trade with more creative incentives.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two suggestions for NEA's consideration. The first is to organise a grand annual competition and provide credible recognition to outstanding hawkers. Such features and awards can help raise awareness that being a hawker requires a special distinguished craft, just like how a Michelin chef is recognised. The competition can include various categories, showcasing preservation of traditional techniques and heritage dishes, creativity in new recipes, healthier food selections, excellence within cost constraints or excellence within slightly higher budgets, to cater to different taste buds and different pocket sizes.

The competition prize can include a free rental for a period, at a stall of the winner’s choice. This reward could be a pragmatic way to encourage talented young people to enter the hawker profession as it enables them to start off with an advantage.

My second suggestion is for Enterprise Singapore and NEA to jointly help enterprising hawkers who do not have the funds to promote and expand their business and operations within Singapore and overseas. One way is to form a panel to identify and promote certain local brands and assist them to look into pre-packaged meals for the retail market. They can either be dried, canned or frozen. With new ideas and creativity, we can further strengthen Singapore’s local hawker brand names and, in turn, raise awareness for our hawker culture.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when older hawkers retire, we must do our best to incentivise younger Singaporeans to continue their legacy while earning a fair livelihood. Our Singaporean food culture is about our good and affordable hawker food and this is a gem that must continue to shine.

I support the amended Motion put forth by Member Mr Edward Chia.

Mr Speaker: Leader.

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Keith Chua.

6.36 pm

Mr Keith Chua (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, allow me to declare my interests in this matter. Currently, I serve as a member on the National Heritage Board. I am also currently Vice President of the Restaurant Association of Singapore and also Executive Chairman of a food service business.

Hawkers play a key role in the F&B landscape. They continue to provide tasty and affordable meals for all Singaporeans. An NEA study in 2023 suggests that over 80% of Singaporeans consume hawker centre food at least once a week.

Hawker food continues to remain largely affordable owing to a variety of factors. In F&B, the three main cost components are cost of space, that is, rental; cost of food, that is, the raw materials that go into the dish; and manpower. Hence, an F&B business thrives or survives when it generates sufficient revenue to cover all operating expenses.

Government policy thus far has recognised the value and place of hawkers in our society, and it would seem the majority of hawkers benefit from generally low and manageable rentals in the 100-plus hawker centres. Older hawkers continue to benefit from the Subsidised Rent Scheme. NEA data estimates this at about 40% of cooked food stallholders. NEA also reports that the average successful monthly bid for cooked food stalls continues to be lower than rental at food courts and coffee shops. Thus, on the issue of rents, can there be a better way to support hawkers moving forward?

Recent high bids in popular centres have raised the question of whether the bidding system is still the correct approach. If we look at the hawker centres, in many hawker centres there will be a few stalls with long queues and many where we can just walk up and order. It is the same pattern in other F&B concepts, whether these are food courts, quick service restaurants or full service restaurants. Some will have waiting lines, while others, you can be seated almost immediately. There are also variations in revenue levels for the same concept over various geographical locations. So, one particular brand in one particular location may attract a certain level of revenue and be different in another location. Some malls, where the foot traffic is high, the F&B outlets located there enjoy proportionately stronger sales. But this comes at a cost – higher rents.

In the case of private landlords, private landlords set the rental and the tenant decides whether to accept it or not or negotiate over the best available rental. In Government hawker centres, the potential tenant offers the landlord what is considered affordable. A seasoned or experienced hawker will know the potential of the business and would have done the maths on what to bid and what is affordable.

The alternative to the bidding system would be a balloting system where the rent is fixed and the variable then becomes the luck of the draw. And this has been proposed by hon Members Mr Leong and Ms Poa. This, too, will not be perfect and could result in potential vacancies, whereas the current bidding system will still award a stall for a minimum of $1 rental if this is the highest bid. I, therefore, feel the Government is addressing the issue of rental costs at hawker centres in a reasonable and fair manner under the current circumstances.

The next big cost item for all food businesses is cost of raw materials. In recent years, we have seen food costs escalate, owing mostly to external factors. Inflation and higher costs have impacted many industry sectors, not just the F&B sector. Food is a necessity. Hence, higher food costs would naturally hit us more noticeably and directly.

Typically, a business will raise selling price to retain operating margins. However, for F&B, this is often not so clear-cut. We are truly spoilt for choice in F&B. Hence, operators, myself included, would need to be judicious in raising selling prices. The similar cautious approach is taken by hawkers who are concerned that a price increase will result in loss of customers. Recent reports suggest that many hawkers prefer to accept the lower operating margins rather than risk losing business through a price increase.

Some suggest that public perception of hawker food is low price and hence, this makes it more difficult for customers to accept price increases.

Mr Speaker, Sir, F&B is a competitive business. The discerning customer will make choices, weighing price, quality, convenience and a variety of other factors.

There are many initiatives to raise the profile of hawker food, with the intention to get the general public to accept paying more for hawker meals. It should be noted though that there are some hawkers who do not intend to raise prices. Some feel that they want to keep the meal affordable for those who would be adversely affected by price increases. Others would feel that they have comfortable earnings even though margins are down.

In this cost area, the Government has been managing inflation at the macro level and, as mentioned by hon Members earlier, provided supplementary efforts, such as the CDC Voucher scheme. The CDC Voucher scheme has the dual impact of helping households meet higher rising costs and supporting spending at selected merchants, including hawkers.

The third cost component, manpower, is a continuing challenge for the F&B sector. While some hawkers work as a family unit, there are those who will need to hire assistants and the cost of this has increased. There is also the issue of supply of manpower. Manpower costs are not as key a cost component for hawkers as other F&B concepts. But where margins are challenged, any increment eats into the bottom line.

Consumer spending does flow with the economic tide. During better times, it is possible that consumers will be willing to spend more on F&B and, therefore, replace a hawker meal with one at a higher cost option. Similarly, when we need to tighten our belts, the demand for hawker food may well increase.

On a national level, there has been the successful inclusion of hawker culture in the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has not been short of efforts and allocation of resources toward the support of hawkers. I believe these will be constantly reviewed and enhanced, where appropriate. The support during and post-COVID-19 would have brought welcome relief to many hawkers, though some hawkers will have been impacted more negatively than others. Hawkers also have opportunities to improve processes and these include grants for equipment and going digital.

One big challenge for the hawker industry is that of succession. While some hawkers have moved into second and third generations, many cease operations when there is no opportunity for succession. F&B operators have been seizing the business opportunity for some popular stalls and scaling these to multi-outlet operations. It remains to be seen how this will feed into the continuity of our hawker culture.

There are also examples of hawkers who have grown into full scale restaurants on their own and not just one restaurant, but several outlets. KEK Seafood is one example of a family that has successfully transitioned into the second generation, having grown from a stall to now, a multi-outlet restaurant business.

Hawker culture as we know it will need to evolve. The case study, entitled "Cooking or Cooked: The Future of Singapore's Hawker Culture" by Khor Jia Wei and Kenneth Tan, helpfully lists the multiple issues and factors feeding into the sustainability of the hawker industry. Public policy is just one of the factors. Public perception of hawkers and the expectation of cheap food may well need to evolve.

However, we also want to try to ensure that access to good and affordable meals remains available and accessible for those who need this option, as we work on raising income levels. As we reframe our definition of success, there may well be a rethink on where providing good and affordable food, or taking on a thriving hawker business into the next generation will be on this list. Mr Speaker, Sir, I therefore intend to support the amended Motion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

6.47 pm

Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I felt compelled to speak on this Motion, having pushed the Government to resume building hawker centres since I became a Member of this House in 2006. The perfect opportunity came in 2011, when Minister Vivian Balakrishnan became the Minister for Environment and Water Resources. And I know him to be a Minister who has always been open-minded about new policy ideas or policy changes, and that he has no hesitation to move if he feels that it is the right thing to do.

Hence, on our first Environment Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) meeting with him in 2011, I remember my first ask to him at that meeting was to review the hawker centre policy and to consider resuming the building of new hawker centres.

My arguments then were, firstly, coffee shops were changing hands at very high prices at the time, in the tens of millions, which had direct flow-on effects on stall rentals and added upward pressures on food prices. There was a need for the Government to intervene, so that the mass retail food market would continue to be affordable.

Secondly, we need to lower the barrier to entry for hawkers to enter the trade so as to keep the hawkers' trade alive and going. The inadequate supply of affordable hawker spaces then would be a major impediment to would-be hawkers. So, we needed to tackle the insufficient supply of hawker stalls.

My third argument then was, it may not be intended that way at its inception, but today's hawker centres have become our unique social melting pot. There is huge social value in having a publicly-run, not-for-profit common eating spaces, where people from all walks of life can come together, under one roof to dine.

Sir, hawker centres came about in 1971 when the Government relocated 18,000 street hawkers that operated under unhygienic and unregulated environments, and moved them into modestly built and inexpensive premises that comes with stricter hygiene regulation and proper licensing.

Upon completing the relocation exercise in around the mid-1980s, the Government stopped building new hawker centres. And the reason is that the Government felt that the provision of eating places and food can be left to the private sector, such as coffee shops and food courts business operators.

There is good reason for that, a good position to begin at that time. Indeed, the Government should not be the sole or dominant retail F&B space provider and manager. The private sector can and should have a role in this F&B ecosystem and besides, the Government also need to focus on its role as a regulator too.

However, what happened around 2011 and prior was that the market mechanism had not worked out in the way as intended. Coffee shops and food court spaces were traded at bubbly high prices. It would have direct bearing on the stall rentals and thereafter, the cooked food prices. This would not be sustainable to the hawker trade and would impact the overall affordability of cooked food prices.

So, my point here is that, while we leave it to market forces to sort out most of the things, there can be situations where the market forces can bring us to the wrong place, such as runaway coffee shop prices, unhealthy market power and monopolistic behavior by dominant players, or that where coffee shops or retail F&B spaces have become speculative assets for trading.

There is a need for the Government to intervene by way of supplying more hawker spaces then to stabilise the markets, no different from how the Government intervene to manage, say, our currency, the Singapore dollar, to keep within a trading band or the cooling measures to tame the hot property markets.

Hawker centres are relatively low capital expenditure infrastructures, they are mostly non-air conditioned and built with a pretty unsophisticated design deliberately, with the purpose to keep maintenance costs low. Because of the typically large floor spaces, it can accommodate more stalls under one roof and offer a wide selection of food choices. As a result, hawker centres are a more competitive marketplace, which helps keep prices of food in check.

With lower barrier to entry and lower running costs, it helps improve the viability of hawker trade businesses and keeps the hawker trade and its food culture alive.

So, I am glad, in 2011, that then-Minister Vivian was able to finally persuade the Cabinet to resume building hawker centres and the first 10 new hawker centres were announced – with the first one being built in Bukit Panjang, although I must declare, I was not the Member of Parliament there yet. But after some wait, I finally have one at my then-constituency, in the Senja area.

And that is how we entered the new era of hawker centres development. I would call this the Hawker Centres 2.0, where a new generation of modern hawker centres sprouted up across the island. At my last count, we have added 14 new hawker centres since 2011, with six more in the pipeline to be built by 2027. NEA still directly managed the existing 121 hawker centres and markets.

While I am glad that the Government has decided to resume building hawker centres and giving the hawker trade a new boost in life, we also know that it comes with both new and old challenges.

First challenge, succession. Our first-generation and even second-generation hawkers are catching up in age. It is understandable that the younger generation may not see hawker trade as their first career choice, although I have also met quite a number of younger ones as well, including at Bukit Panjang. Mr Walter Tay is one of them and he runs "Father and Son Carrot Cake".

But clearly, the numbers are still not enough to replace the earlier generations of hawkers. This is a serious challenge to the hawker trade and to our hawker culture. In recent years, the Government introduced a number of programmes with the aim to encourage more to join the hawker trade, such as the Incubation Stall Programme to assist aspiring hawkers with pre-fitted equipment to lower the startup cost; Hawkers Succession Scheme, which aims to assist veteran hawkers who intend to retire but are unable to find successors, to pass down their skills, recipes and hawker stalls to aspiring hawkers and which also come with a generous $23,000 ex-gratia payment as well as monthly stipend in the initial months. There is also the Hawkers' Development Programme, which helps to equip aspiring and existing hawkers with the relevant skills and competencies to run a hawker business.

We have to keep reviewing these programmes to see if it achieves the intended outcomes and if need be, to introduce new schemes to encourage new hawkers to join the trade.

Sir, the society at large can also play a part to keep the hawker trade going by not only consuming at the hawker centres, but also respect hawker trade as a profession of choice. Many enter the trade as a calling and because of their passion for culinary and local food culture. We should show appreciations and cheer them on, including their stall assistants and the cleaners and the dishwashers at the hawker centres.

The second challenge is insufficient manpower. Hawker cooked food businesses are labour intensive work. The number of meals served and how long is the stall opening hours are, are dependent on the number of stall assistants available at the stalls. These days, it is difficult to find local stall assistants. Among the reasons, the work at hawker centres is physically demanding and the work environment not so appealing.

The policy position has always been that hawker stallholders should be reserved for Singaporeans and PRs, to safeguard the local identity of our hawker culture. Senior Minister of State Dr Koh Poh Koon announced last month that NEA will be relaxing the manpower policy to allow hawkers to hire LTVP+ holders in January next year. I hope that can, in some way, alleviate the manpower situation.

Of course, the other aspect to help hawkers improve productivity is also important. I understand that hawker centres have tapped the various productivity support programmes, such as the Productive Hawker Centres programme, to enjoy the 70% tiered subsidies for centralised dishwashing. The Hawkers Productivity Grant has also helped individual hawkers with 80% co-funding to purchase kitchen automation equipment and digital solutions.

There are also other bulk-purchasing services initiatives to reduce the toil on the workers. Having a larger pool of available stall assistants and to continue to work on improving productivity hopefully can move the needle and alleviate the situation faced by the hawkers.

The third challenge is about the rising input costs and the food price tensions. Hawkers, like all of us, wants a decent wage. Consumers also want affordable or value-for-money food. So, how do we achieve both and where is the balance?

Indeed, prices of cooked food have risen in the last few years, primarily due to rising input costs. Data from the Department of Statistics showed that hawker food prices rose by 6.1% in 2023 and the increase is broad-based. Raw food ingredients among the key components, which are pricier today due to higher global food commodity prices, the extreme weather also has an impact, and the knock-on effects from the higher energy and transport costs.

In response to a recent PQ that I filed, MSE replied that based on NEA's surveys, the main cost drivers for stallholders were ingredients and manpower, which combined, account for 70% to 80% of the hawkers' expenditure.

Over the weekend, I had a chat with Mr Ong Chye Lai, who runs the popular lor mee stall at Bukit Panjang Hawker Centre, to validate NEA's numbers. And he shared with me that, indeed, a major bulk of the cost increases come from his ingredients, such as the fish and meat that he serves, as well as the spices for his lor mee. He added that post-COVID-19, the prices of these ingredients have fluctuated at a wider range and he is trying to cope with the volatility.

How do we fight rising prices that are externally driven, such as supply chain disruptions, the war in Ukraine, the weather, the volatility in the global food commodity markets and that we import almost all of these inputs? Fortunately, in the case of Singapore, we have some very helpful levers to mitigate the impact to our domestic economy.

Firstly, of course, is our strong Singapore dollar. Most of what we consume are imported and if our Singapore dollar is weak, it will be a double whammy to everyone of us. We know that a strong Singapore dollar is not a given and should not be taken for granted. Markets have to see the value in the Singapore dollar, on the basis of fundamentals – do we have a strong and sound economy, are we a strong and cohesive society and how are we as a country?

Secondly, while we use the exchange rate to reduce the impact on imported inflation, it is not possible to totally negate rising costs. Hence, it is also important to work on the other side of the equation as well, which is income. We need to keep on working on income to rise so that it can help us mitigate inflation. And here, again, we need to keep our economy strong and attract investments so as to keep having good jobs and incomes for our people.

The third lever is that we must always have a competitive, efficient and vibrant business ecosystem, where consumers have choices as to where they want to consume. In Chinese, it is called "货比三家". A consumer must have a choice of at least three places to go to consume so that there is always competition. A competitive business landscape helps keep costs and prices in check and help eradicate potential profiteering.

Fourthly, there is the need for the Government to continue to give direct assistance to help Singaporeans cope with the rising costs. And we do have a whole range of assistance schemes like GST Vouchers, U-Save vouchers, service and conservancy charges rebates, the Cost of Living payouts, CDC Vouchers, Workfare, Silver Support and so on. Some of these assistance measures are permanent in nature and adds up to the billions of dollars from our Budget allocation.

Again, we are fortunate to be in this good fiscal position to help Singaporeans households directly and very extensively, to directly assist Singaporean households to cope with the cost of living.

The fifth lever is everyone of us – the community support initiatives. We know in various constituencies, we all do have our ground-up initiatives to help our fellow residents cope with cost of living. For example, at Bukit Panjang Town, we have what we call the monthly "$1 Deal" initiative, "一元为定", to help reduce the impact of cost of living to our fellow residents. We use funding from the community or from donors and not imposing it on the stallholders or hawkers.

There are also the private sector initiatives in the neigbourhood such as DBS’ "5 Million Hawker Meals" scheme and the various grocery support schemes such as by Hao Ren Hao Shi, "好人好事", New Life Community Service and also organisations like the Association of Banks of Singapore who bring volunteers and offer groceries to our residents.

Sir, before I end, I want to speak on another issue, with regard to the outlier high rental bids during the monthly tender exercises by NEA. Out-of-the-norm high rentals do attract a lot of attention and may influence future would-be stall bidders to bid higher and thereby, push up overall average rentals. So, we need to figure out how we can prevent that from happening.

Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon had taken pains to explain to the House at last month’s Sitting that outlier high tender bids are not the norm and that the median rent typically average around $1,200 per month in the last 10 years, as per his recent speech, And some subsidised stallholders pay about $300 per month. NEA allocates stalls on price-based tender basis, with no reserve bid price. So, stall rentals can go below $100 per month, including to as low as $1 in the past, as it had happened before in the past. I note the announcement last month that NEA will stagger the downward rental adjustments over a longer period, after three years, referencing the Assessed Market Rent.

Let us keep a close watch in the subsequent biddings whether the change has any effect in discouraging outlier bids. I also welcome NEA move to make available more information and make available the online business cost estimation tool to help tenderers make more informed and realistic bids.

Having said that I would still want to come back to my suggestion that I raised in last month's Sitting, which is that besides tender price, we should also look at the quality of the bid or what we call the price-quality method, or PQM.

For example, in the event that of top bid rent price, that significantly deviates from the Assessed Market Rent, NEA can carry out a deeper evaluation on the bidders on whether the bidder really has the means and the capability to sustain their business with such a high rental rates? In that way, we can remove some of these unrealistic bids and reduce the incidence of outliers in the rental bid price.

Sir, in conclusion, since the policy change to build hawker centres about 10 years ago – credit to MSE, NEA and the various Government agencies – we have seen concerted efforts and significant resources being allocated to support the hawker trade. We now see really modernised hawker centres, better facilities, better ambience – this is a good thing for the hawkers ecosystem.

Besides the various support schemes to support individual hawkers, there is also the Hawker Centre Upgrading Programme to upgrade older hawker centres, there is the Toilet Improvement Programme which the Ulu Pandan Hawker Centre just recently benefited from, and there are the CDC Vouchers to support hawkers as well as heartland digitalisation packages to help support the overall hawker centre ecosystem.

Of course, there will continue to be challenges to the hawker trade, but as Mr Edward Chia stated in his amended Motion, we must continue to support our hawkers by regularly reviewing the policies and to sustain our hawker ecosystem, so that both the hawkers can earn a fair livelihood and Singaporeans at large can enjoy good and affordable hawker food.

Sir, with that, I support the amended Motion in the name of Mr Edward Chia.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.

7.06 pm

Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the early hours of 11 October 2016, I received an urgent call from my volunteers: a fire had broken out in a market in Jurong Central. Rushing to the scene, I found the wet market and an adjacent eating house completely destroyed. Another nearby coffee shop was also severely damaged and would remain closed for months.

Immediately, we rallied our volunteers to support the affected hawkers, who were devastated by the loss of their businesses. I reached out to NEA for a list of alternative cooked food stalls and market stalls at nearby hawker centres in the West, offering the hawkers a temporary place to continue their livelihoods while we began to explore options for rebuilding. With the help of South West CDC, we were able to quickly provide emergency relief funds to support them through those first difficult days.

But the challenge was far from over. We faced two options: either construct a temporary market within six to 12 months or undertake a faster rebuild of the burnt market back to the original condition, which would take 12 to 18 months. Building a temporary market would cost about $750,000 – a daunting figure that we would have to fundraise. After consulting with the hawkers, nearby residents, volunteers, construction experts and the Government agencies, we chose to go ahead with a temporary market for several reasons.

Firstly, the hawkers wanted to stay close to their original market location to continue serving their loyal customers. They needed to earn their livelihood. Secondly, residents valued the convenience of having their favourite stalls nearby. Lastly, we saw an opportunity not just to restore what was lost but to create something better for the hawkers, the community and the residents.

Together, we took on the challenge and, against all odds, raised the funds and built the temporary market in just six weeks – much faster than industry experts had predicted. By the end of 2016, the stallholders were back in business. And on 1 January 2019, we opened the new market and eating house known as the Jurong Central Plaza, a two-storey complex that also includes a Senior Day Care Centre on the upper floor, providing valuable services to our elderly community members.

The reason we were able to build the temporary market in just six weeks, instead of six months, was the unwavering commitment of the entire Government to support the hawkers during this crisis. This extraordinary achievement would not have been possible without the dedication and collaboration of our partners. I want to express my heartfelt thanks to the donors, HDB, NEA, the Public Utilities Board (PUB), the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and all the Government agencies whose collective effort made this a reality.

During this period, from 2016 to 2018, my team and I effectively became the developers and operators of the temporary market. We gained a deeper understanding of the hawkers’ challenges and the nuances of operating a hawker stall. I recall that when we first provided the list of available stalls managed by NEA to the cooked food stallholders affected by the fire, their initial concern was rental rates. When they learned that some stalls could be rented for as low as $1 per month, they were immediately skeptical. The hawkers were forthright, expressing that while rental rates were important, their primary concern was foot traffic and community reach.

The experience of managing a temporary market and overseeing the rebuilding of a new market and eating house proved to be invaluable when I later worked with the NEA to reopen the Jurong West Hawker Centre in West Coast GRC.

The old Jurong West Market and Hawker Centre faced significant challenges to stay afloat, battling fierce competition from a nearby food court and a 24-hour supermarket. The isolated location of its cooked food stalls on the second level, hidden away from the public eye at street level, gave them more challenges.

To ensure the success of the new centre, we conducted a survey of over 2,000 nearby residents to better understand their preferences for wet market stalls, cooked food stalls, or a combination of both. The results revealed that more residents preferred a combination of both. However, when we examined the responses more closely, we found that many of those who expressed a preference for wet market stalls had rarely, if ever, shopped there. And some had visited only once in a blue moon. This insight gave us valuable perspective on the real needs and habits of the community. With this insight, we made the decision to focus solely on cooked food stalls, making use of both the ground and second levels with easy access via escalators.

Today, the revitalised Jurong West Hawker Centre is doing much better than before. The tenants pay a fixed rental fee to the SEHC operator of the Jurong West Hawker Centre, Chang Cheng, rather than through a price bidding system. The tenants also received rental discounts in the first couple of years of operations. The operator organises fringe activities periodically to bring in the crowd and plans to offer discount vouchers to vulnerable families.

In addition, many of us have local schemes to help our residents better cope with the rising cost of living. In Nanyang division, for example, blue CHAS card holders can apply for multiple $1 breakfast voucher to exchange for a $3 breakfast set from two main coffee shops at Blocks 815 and 959 Jurong West. At Ayer Rajah-Gek Poh, low income residents receive $50 WeCare vouchers monthly to spend at local shops, including local hawker centre.

The above experiences underscore the Government’s steadfast support for our hawkers as well as our support to our vulnerable residents, to mitigate the impact from rising food costs. The very concept of hawker centres was championed by the PAP Government and today, Singapore’s hawker culture is recognised on UNESCO’s Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

Are we perfect? Certainly not. Nothing is. But we continue to listen, adapt and improve to support our hawkers and Singaporeans who are patrons of the hawker centre. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, in October 2016, when a fire broke out at the market and food centre in Jurong Central, 56 stallholders instantly lost their livelihoods. Faced with this sudden incident, I immediately gathered grassroots leaders, volunteers and affected stallholders to engage in urgent consultations with relevant agencies, such as HDB and NEA. We decided to quickly set up a temporary market for the stallholders. What was originally estimated to take six months of construction was completed successfully in six weeks. From the fire in October to around Christmas at the end of December, the affected stallholders were able to reopen their businesses.

The smooth completion of this project was due to the full support from HDB, NEA, SCDF, PUB and other Government agencies. At the same time, we also received donations from many kind-hearted individuals which enabled the temporary market to be completed so quickly. After a two-year transition period, the new two-storey Jurong Central building finally officially opened on 1 January 2019, providing hawkers with a brand new and more spacious business venue, as well as a more comfortable shopping and dining environment for our residents.

Between 2016 and 2018, my team and I not only had to operate the temporary market, but also prepare for the construction of the new market and food court. This process was full of challenges and complexities. However, it was precisely this experience that gave us a deeper understanding of the hard work and difficulties faced by hawkers in their daily operations.

This valuable experience was very helpful later when I joined the West Coast GRC to assist NEA in planning the re-opening of the Jurong West Hawker Centre. The new Jurong West Hawker Centre broke away from the previous design of having cooked-food stalls only on the second floor and instead placed them on both the first and second floors, offering more diverse choices and better visibility. The new Jurong West Hawker Centre has been operating for over a year now, attracting a noticeably increased footfall, making it more convenient for everyone to enjoy good food.

These two examples fully demonstrate the joint efforts of the Government and civil society in improving the environment for hawkers and enhancing the diversity of our local cuisine. At the same time, the tripartite partners have been working tirelessly to ensure that Singaporeans can enjoy high quality and more diverse local food.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, the examples cited above showcase our continuous support for our hawkers. Thus, I fully support the Motion as amended by Mr Edward Chia.

Mr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.

7.18 pm

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Hawker culture, recognised by UNESCO as part of our intangible cultural heritage, is not just about food. It is about a way of life that brings together Singaporeans from all walks of life, around the humble dining table of our hawker centres.

First, on Singapore's support-hawker measures. In recent years, we have the Singapore Government, including MSE and NEA, stepping up significantly to support and preserve hawker culture. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, the Government implemented several measures to protect hawkers. Rental and table-cleaning waivers and salary subsidies through the Jobs Support Scheme were granted to ease the financial strain during these uncertain times. CDC Vouchers were also introduced to encourage locals to support their neighbourhood hawkers. These initiatives were designed to help hawkers sustain their livelihoods through challenging times, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Post-COVID-19, the support continues. Policies aimed to sustain the hawking industry were introduced. Some have been fairly successful and some not so, but I know the Government is closely looking at these. These include the revised rent control measures, a suite of hawker training programmes to increase the replacement rate of hawkers, the Hawkers' Productivity Grant and the Hawkers Go Digital Programme; and of course, the ongoing CDC Vouchers.

In fact, the budget for CDC Vouchers, originally intended only for lower-income households, was substantially increased after the Mayors appealed and worked with the Ministry of Finance to extend them to every Singaporean household. So, big thanks to the Ministers for Finance – then, Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat and now, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong. A unique feature in the safety net, the CDC Voucher scheme has the dual purpose of supporting both Singaporeans and the heartland businesses, especially hawkers. This support is still ongoing. I thank PSP and PAP MPs alike for agreeing that the CDC Vouchers are, indeed, useful.

Next, on the importance of infrastructure improvements. Infrastructure improvements are another critical element of preserving hawker culture. Over the years, NEA has initiated several programmes to modernise and maintain hawker centres. NEA-managed hawker centres have seen substantial upgrades in facilities, cleanliness and ventilation, ensuring that patrons can enjoy a pleasant dining experience. These physical improvements are not merely cosmetic. They are essential to the continuity of hawker culture. A clean, safe and well-ventilated environment encourages patrons to return and also helps retain hawkers to stay on in their trade and jobs.

Let me touch a bit about NEA-managed and Town-Council-managed hawker centres. Besides social enterprises which manage hawker centres, the Town Councils also manage hawker centres.

NEA, with its resources and expertise, has been able to uphold high operational standards in the NEA-managed hawker centres, whereas the Town Councils face some limitations, due to their smaller budgets and also fewer specialised resources, as they were primarily set up to serve residential estates. Town Councils primarily rely on S&CCs from stallholders, which are usually insufficient to cover the extensive maintenance costs required to match NEA standards.

This resource gap is particularly evident in our Central District hawker centres, such as People's Park Complex, Albert Centre and Chinatown Complex, which serve not only local residents but also a significant number of tourists. These prominent centres managed by Town Councils require substantial maintenance to uphold the standards expected of national landmarks, yet the Town Councils often lack the necessary funds and specialised management expertise.

So, in light of these challenges, I propose that NEA categorise or tier the types of hawker centres and even coffee shops and allocate its resources and expertise accordingly. I do not think that NEA should take over the running of all hawker centres, but I do urge NEA to assume responsibility for managing and maintaining key national iconic hawker centres, such as Albert Centre, People's Park and Chinatown Complex, that serve mostly non-residents versus residents. By doing so, NEA can apply its specialised expertise and substantial resources to ensure that these centres continue to reflect the high standards associated with Singapore's hawker culture.

Alternatively, if taking over these iconic hawker centres is too daunting for now and actually needs further review, then I urge NEA to consider providing a resource package or support framework for these specific centres, acknowledging the unique demands placed on them as tourist hotspots and cultural icons.

Next, on the need to look beyond financial incentives to sustain and grow Singapore's hawker culture. In a survey quoted in a 2024 Lee Kwan Yew School of Public Policy article, "Cooking or Cooked: The Future of Singapore's Hawker Culture", 87% of respondents stated they do not want to be hawkers, quoting long working hours and lack of interest. Hawking is also perceived to be a job that reaps modest income.

These root causes are not easy to solve and will take more than financial resources and incentives. Are all hawkers and hawker centres equal? Which ones should be managed by the State and which ones by Town Councils or social enterprises? If the Government were to subsidise the costs of operating hawking businesses, especially in housing estates with predominantly Singapore residents, then can or should they reserve the right to at least control the rental and ensure budget meals for Singaporeans? "Budget meals" is not a dirty term. Actually, it is quite useful. These are some of the questions that we have to and need to be reckoned with, as we review how to support and promote hawker culture.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, hawker culture is a cornerstone of our heritage. The root issues of declining margins and the reluctance of younger Singaporeans to enter this industry are not easy to resolve and need to be recognised. So, let us work together – Government agencies, Town Councils, social enterprises, hawkers and citizens – to ensure that this heritage remains accessible and affordable for generations to come. With this, I support the Motion as amended by hon Member Edward Chia.

Mr Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.

7.25 pm

Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, I thank the Member Leong Mun Wai for raising this Motion and Member Edward Chia for his amendments. We all care about our hawkers.

What has been made clear in the debate thus far is our collective passion for sustaining our hawker culture by ensuring that hawker centres remain affordable and accessible, helping hawkers address current operating challenges, such as the increasing cost of ingredients, the rising costs of running a stall and a manpower crunch. We also need to put focus on attracting and empowering the next generation of hawkers to continue this tradition as ageing veterans retire, preserving our culinary heritage while innovating to meet evolving tastes.

It is also clear that the experiences of our hawkers are varied. Different SEHC managers, different locations, different rental rates, different offerings and pricing strategies and, indeed, different hawker aspirations and expectations, lead to different experiences. So, there are no silver bullets. The Government has introduced many programmes to help, such as, on the supply side, the Hawker Development Programme, Hawker's Productivity Grant; and targeted rental, financial and skills development assistance; on the demand side, we are all familiar with the CDC Vouchers scheme.

We can see the Government continuing to invest in new and upgrading hawker centre infrastructure and refining its policies to sustain our hawker culture. For example, the recent move to allow hawkers to hire workers on LTVPs in order to relieve manpower shortages.

Sometimes, the issue is not the policy, but the implementation. For example, improvements are probably needed in the operating processes and practices of specific SEHCs. Perhaps, we could incorporate 360 feedback from customers and especially hawkers, to become inputs into PQM tenders and ongoing performance assessment of SEHCs, to help them improve. After all, hawkers are very important stakeholders in the ecosystem.

I will focus my speech on the community aspect of hawker culture. Beyond the good and affordable food, our hawker centres have long been about community. Places where people from all walks of life come together with their friends and families, share stories, celebrate milestones – except perhaps a first date for Gen Zs, by the recent report – and enjoy our culinary heritage.

As a Woodlands resident and third-generation hawker, Deen, observed, the veteran hawkers like his grandmother are the salt-and-earth people. Their fellow stallholders and their customers, whom they know by name, are their community. Sure, sometimes, there would be disagreements between hawkers, especially when they sell the same type of food, but, generally, hawkers within a hawker centre get along. They give back, too, as a community, to the community.

Deen shared how when a hawker wanted to give free meals to, say, a mosque, the whole row of stalls would chip in. It is their way of doing good while also gaining goodwill within the community and marketing their hawker centre and their own food. Even today, many of us have probably seen hawkers quietly dishing out meals to needy residents for only a few coins in return, without much fanfare, affording them dignity along with their food.

Given this community spirit, it is only right that beyond Government policies, beyond actions to be taken by NEA, SEHCs and other ecosystem players, we look to the wider community to be engaged in sustaining our hawker culture. There is much that we, as a community, can do to support hawkers while ensuring that anyone, regardless of their circumstances, can enjoy a good meal.

In Woodlands, during the COVID-19 pandemic, I started our Belanja-A-Meal @ Woodlands or BAM@Woodlands programme at Kampung Admiralty Hawker Centre and coffee shops in my division. It is a Pay It Forward programme. People can buy extra meals at over 30 participating hawker stalls or make an online donation, while low-income residents can redeem free meals of their choice – 10 meals a month for each member of their family. Volunteers top up the available meals at each stall every week to ensure that residents always have a good selection. All of this is facilitated by a nifty little app built by volunteers in our Woodlands Digital Office.

This short summary belies the community spirit that underpins this programme. The relationship is not at all transactional. Many of our hawker stalls give more value than the $4 we pay them for each BAM meal. Our stallholders refer to us customers who they believe would benefit from the BAM programme. We sign them up and also get them other help that they can benefit from beyond BAM. They also tell me when their customers share with them their problems and encourage them to approach me for help at my Meet-the-People Sessions. Many of our stallholders are regular contributors to BAM@Woodlands themselves, especially after a few big redemptions in a day can wipe out their balance of free meals. And the community has really rallied behind it. Let me share some of the heartwarming reasons people wrote on why they were donating.

Mak Kai Chong, a regular donor donating $10 to $20 each time, wrote: "I want to contribute to my community and I find the BAM idea fantastic. If I have a little more than I need, I try to live kindness and care through action rather than being an observer."

Yong Sit Lin, who donated $100, wrote: "I donated so that people in need can have a good meal."

Marie Ong, who donated $1,000, wrote: “I always believe that to be able to help others in need or to create positive change is a beautiful thing! I love to see the smile on everyone’s faces and spread love and joy around.”

Amalina Mutalib, who donated $10, wrote: “I donated because I know what it feels like to feel hunger.”

An anonymous donor who donated $20 wrote: “I have the tendency to lose my wallet and forget where I put it. I found my wallet today and I take is as a sign that God wants me to donate!”

Muhammad Faqih Karamy, who donated $10, simply wrote: “I sayang Sembawang.”

Finally, an anonymous donor who wrote: “I like MP Mariam as I have been following her on Facebook and her projects have shown how much she cares for people, not just her constituents. Way to go, Ms Mariam!"

I had to think twice about reading that last one out, but the point is really not to toot my own horn, but to share the insights, that Singaporeans care and are happy to help others enjoy good hawker meals. We just need to provide the platforms. Beyond the general public, we had great support from Northwest CDC to start it up, and corporate donors and patrons who made significant donations.

In addition to helping our residents in need, BAM@Woodlands was a great help to our hawkers during the dark days of COVID-19 when business was low and continues to be a source of business today. It has also strengthened the bonds between hawkers and the community. I will share some examples.

Mdm Suryati Pokol, who until recently ran Warung Lorong Fatimah at Kampung Admiralty, wrote: “Thank you for being with me when the times were down... You bring the BAM plan to us. It was a splendid thought that I will make it happen for the Woodlands residents and make customers to be my new friends, and they supported me very well”.

In 2021, a stall assistant at Woodlands North Plaza met with a horrific car accident that left him in a coma for months and huge hospital bills. Not knowing where else to turn to, his colleagues spoke to our volunteers who had been engaging with them on BAM@Woodlands. Our volunteers helped them to set up a crowdfunding appeal. Within a week, it raised $200,000 to help Ah Ji pay for his hospital bills and rehabilitation.

Two of our stallholders at Kampung Admiralty, Mr Peh and Ms Chen, have even become our patrons, contributing to our Building Fund for the upgrading of Woodlands Community Centre which, when opened, will serve our community for years to come.

Now in its fourth year, BAM is still growing and has been expanded to other parts of Sembawang GRC, including to my colleague Ms Poh Li San's ward in Sembawang West. To date, more than 70,000 free meals have been redeemed, with more beneficiaries joining the programme every month. Despite their own costs going up, many stalls have absorbed the price increases without requiring our BAM@Woodlands beneficiaries to top up the difference. But I do not take our hawkers for granted and will be revising the $4 we pay them for each meal in the new year.

To me, BAM@Woodlands embodies the kampung spirit of our Woodlands Community at its finest. Hawkers and the community supporting one another.

I believe we can do more to scale up such initiatives across Singapore. By working with local organisations, grassroots and hawkers themselves, we can launch programmes similar to Belanja-A-Meal in every constituency. Imagine a network of hawker centres where every meal bought could contribute to someone else’s meal, where acts of kindness ripple outwards, creating a culture of giving, of mutual support. By expanding programmes like this, we, the community, can help ensure that our hawker centres continue to be vibrant, inclusive spaces that reflect the Singaporean spirit. Mr Speaker, in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Hawker centres are part of our living heritage. We all have our favourite hawker stalls where our families will come together to catch up and enjoy a good meal, sometimes going across the country. When I was living overseas, every trip home meant through a list of our favourite hawker food, which included mee mamak at West Coast and satay at Haig Road.

We know it is not easy to be a hawker, with long hours and a less that comfortable work environment, always on your feet. Hawkers today face many challenges – increasing cost of ingredients, increasing operating costs and manpower shortages.

We must also support our younger hawkerpreneurs. These younger hawkerpreneurs want to bring new ideas and concepts that cater to the evolving tastes of their customers and dream of expanding their business. This is not new. How many of us had our first taste of Western food at a hawker center? One example is Mak’s Place, started by a Chinese Muslim couple. Their story tells of how they saw a gap in the market for Halal Chinese food and started with a hawker stall in 1999. After two years, they started Mak’s Place, the hawkerant in Changi, selling the same good food at reasonable prices, in a more comfortable ambience with air conditioning, while giving back to the community in many ways, including providing free food to the less fortunate, providing jobs and mentoring to ex-offenders, and food and medical care to community cats.

Many in our community want to follow in their foot steps. They want more flexibility to experiment with their menus and to make it easier for them to scale and expand their footprint and team, when the concepts are successful – whether it is opening stalls in other hawker centres, opening a hawkerant, cafe or restaurant. We must empower and support them.

The Government has launched programmes to support our hawkers, including young hawkers, and has continuously reviewed its policies to do so. But we in the community can also do our part.

One of the sources of inspiration in our hawker culture is how it has united the community, fostering a spirit of togetherness and generosity. Initiatives like BAM@Woodlands are a good example of this. We launched BAM@Woodlands during COVID-19 to support our hawkers whose businesses were impacted and to provide our residents in need with free meals of their choice. People can buy extra meals to be given away at participating hawker stalls or make an online donation that we would then channel to the hawkers.

This simple idea has been embraced by the community and continues to grow. We have now launched BAM in other parts of Sembawang GRC. Over the past four years, it has provided more than 70,000 free meals to hundreds of families. It has also strengthened the bonds between our hawkers and our community. Our hawkers regularly participate in our community initiatives, especially during festive occasions when everyone is always looking to do good and perform charitable works.

For example, Mdm Suryati Pokol, who ran Warung Lorong Fatimah at Kampung Admiralty Hawker Centre, donated more than 100 bottles of kuih raya to our kuih raya donation drive. Low-income families were able to choose their favourite kuih during the Sinar Ramadan grocery distribution at our community store, Store@Woodlands.

Deen and his young team set up Begerack at Bukit Canberra Hawker Center. He sells burgers and putu piring. They are a regular feature at our community events with their very popular putu piring. Begerack sponsored free hair cuts by skilled barkers from Sleek & Trendy Cut, set up by Upu, an ex-offender, to get our low-income residents ready for Raya.

For the past four Ramadans, Woodlands Community Centre has used the BAM platform to provide 1,000 free buka puasa meals every week at our halal hawker stalls. Ramadan BAM is open to people of all races and backgrounds, to share in the spirit of giving of iftar which as Muslims we believe multiplies our fasts and rewards. This programme has also helped to introduce new stalls to our residents, such as when the halal food court Cantine opened at Admiralty Place.

We can do more to scale up such initiatives like this across Singapore. By expanding programmes like these, we, the community, can help ensure that our hawker centres continue to be vibrant, inclusive spaces that reflect the Singapore spirit.

(In English): Mr Speaker, in conclusion, our hawker centres are a symbol of our shared history and values, where we find comfort and community. To sustain and grow our hawker culture, we must take a holistic approach. This includes Government support but also community initiatives and efforts to empower the next generation of hawkers. Let us not under-estimate what we, the community, can do. If we care enough about it, we must work together to preserve this precious part of our identity, so that future generations can continue to enjoy and contribute to a vibrant hawker culture. I support the amended Motion.

Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Shawn Huang.

7.42 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong): Mr Speaker, central to this Motion is the issue of cost of living and the important role played by hawker centres in ensuring Singaporeans have access to good, affordable food.

Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon will be speaking about the Government's policies to keep food affordable and enable hawkers to earn a living and fair income. Before he does so, I would like to share how the Government has been supporting Singaporeans with cost-of-living pressures. This Government understands Singaporeans' concerns and anxieties about high prices. We have taken decisive action to help and will not hesitate to do more if necessary.

First, the Government has taken actions to tackle inflation. A big part of the inflation that we are facing has external causes. The COVID-19 pandemic and the wars in Europe and the Middle East have contributed to rising food, energy and transport prices globally. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) acted quickly to tighten monetary policy five times. The stronger the Singapore dollar meant that inflation did not reach the highs seen in other countries. Inflation has now fallen significantly from its peak. Hawker food inflation, fallen, compared to the earlier part of this year. Overall, core inflation in 2024 is expected to continue to decrease and to drop further in 2025. MAS' monetary policy will continue to ensure the medium-term price stability.

Second, we have introduced a comprehensive package of measures to cushion the impact on households and enhanced it several times. Even as inflation has moderated, we know that Singaporeans still feel the impact of higher prices. Hence, we have enhanced the Assurance Package several times since it was first introduced in 2022, to help Singaporeans cope with rising costs of living. And today, we have enhanced the Assurance Package to more than $10 billion, comprising cash payouts, MediSave top-ups, CDC Vouchers as well as additional U-Save and S&CC rebates.

In particular, the Government has been giving out CDC Vouchers to Singaporean households every year since the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. The number of participating hawkers has grown over time. Half of the CDC Vouchers can be spent at hawkers and heartland merchants. This means that CDC Vouchers not only help Singaporean households with their cost of living, but also support our hawkers. There is more support on the way. In January 2025, every Singaporean household will receive another $300 in CDC Vouchers.

In the coming months, all adult Singaporeans will also receive between $200 and $600 in cash payouts. The Assurance Package is on top of the permanent GST Voucher, or GSTV, scheme that already supports lower- and middle-income Singaporeans and households with daily living expenses, including food. We introduced this scheme in 2012 and have enhanced it over the years.

Most recently, we have increased the GSTV cash amount in 2023 so that eligible Singaporeans can receive up to $850 in cash each year. We also implemented a personal income tax rebate of 50% tax payable for the year of assessment 2024, capped at $200, so that the benefits go mostly to middle-income workers.

Ms Hazel Poa has proposed more help for vulnerable groups, such as food discounts and more CDC Vouchers for the lower-income. In fact, this is what the Government has been doing. When you add up all these measures, for example, a middle-income household with two young children will get about $4,400 in rebates, payouts and support this year.

A lower-income household with two young children will get about $6,500 and a retired elderly couple with no income will get about $12,400. Over the years, we have continued to enhance our measures that provide more targeted support to those who are more in need.

For example, in Budget 2024, the Government announced an increase in the quarterly Silver Support payments and an income threshold to qualify for support to provide more help to low-income seniors. On top of the national schemes, the CDCs and grassroots organisations also have their own schemes. We have heard what hon Members Edward Chia, Liang Eng Hwa and Mariam Jaafar have highlighted and what they have done for their community.

Third, the Government stands ready to do more to support Singaporeans, should it be necessary. The Government will continue to monitor global conditions closely. For example, an increase in geopolitical and trade tensions may lead to higher commodity prices and reverse the decline in imported costs.

The broad-based support that we have provided over the past few years will help every family, but we recognise that there may be still gaps for some households. For these households, we will continue to review and update our social support schemes. We are also heartened that many in society have come together to help with cost of living, especially for the more vulnerable groups. Importantly, we will continue to sustain real income growth for Singaporeans.

We do this by creating good jobs for Singaporeans, we help them upgrade their skills and earn a higher pay. It is a more sustainable way to manage price pressures by ensuring that our incomes grow faster than inflation. Let me reiterate the Government's approach.

We cannot control external factors like wars or disruptions, but a stronger Singapore dollar has helped to keep inflation rates in Singapore lower than elsewhere. We have rolled out significant and broad-based support measures over the past few years to help Singaporeans with higher cost of living.

We stand ready to do more to help Singaporeans if needed in a sustainable, fair and effective way, with more help to lower- and middle-income Singaporeans. We will continue to listen to Singaporeans' concerns and take necessary measures to address these concerns. We will continue to help Singaporeans sustain real income growth through higher productivity and enhanced skills.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Sim Ann.

7.49 pm

The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Ms Sim Ann): Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak. The main subject of our discussion today is hawker centres and my colleague Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon will be setting out the Government's approach to hawker centres. However, some speakers, including Mr Leong Mun Wai, made reference to the "Budget Meal" schemes in HDB coffee shops. Also, we know that HDB coffee shops are often mentioned together with hawker centres, although they are regulated differently. So, I would like to take this opportunity to make a few points.

Sir, like hawker centres, coffee shops in our HDB heartlands are integral to Singaporeans' daily lives. They are important social nodes in the community and provide a variety of cooked food options at similar price points to hawker centres. HDB plans for the provision of coffee shops and other commercial amenities in new HDB developments carefully to ensure that HDB residents have convenient access to cooked food options and other daily needs. Most residents have access to commercial facilities, such as shops, food courts or coffee shops, within 400 metres of their homes, or an approximately five- to 10-minute walk.

By planning for a good supply of coffee shops and other F&B options in every HDB town and estate, we ensure that residents have options to choose from. The competition will also help to moderate cooked food prices overall. Having said that, over the years, as wages rise, more consumers can afford and are prepared to pay for higher-end meal options and operators have, therefore, responded to these trends.

We have seen coffee shop menu items change, expand and increase in price points over time. The Government continuously pays attention to ground concerns about cost of living and recognise the need for our heartland coffee shops to maintain some lower-priced meals and drinks to cater to those who may not be able to spend as much on cooked food. This includes lower-wage workers and retirees.

This would have been hard to achieve if we had continued to leave things entirely to market forces. The Government, therefore, needed to intervene, but in a measured way that takes business sustainability into account. To strike this balance, the Ministry of National Development and HDB proactively put in place the "Budget Meal" initiative in 2018.

Budget meals are full meals that are priced affordably, as compared to the average price of meals sold at nearby eating places. Typically, they are priced at $3.50 and below. Since 2018, all new HDB rental coffee shops that are tendered out to operators must provide budget meals. This is done under the Price Quality Method tender framework, also known as the PQM tender framework. Under this framework, operators were required to provide six budget meals as well as a budget drink.

I want to take this opportunity to thank Mr Louis Chua for affirming the PQM method. I wish to clarify that HDB does not, as Mr Leong Mun Wai had suggested, require coffee shops to offer budget meals below market prices. The prices should be affordable, compared to surrounding options, but we do not require them to be lower.

Having gained some experience with implementing budget meals at new HDB rental coffee shops, in April 2023, HDB extended the budget meal requirement to rental coffee shops that are up for tenancy renewal. This move coincided with a period of rising food and energy prices and sustained inflation caused by disruptions following the war in Ukraine and extreme weather.

We know that consumers view coffee shop prices as an everyday expenditure and are sensitive to across-the-board price increases. Hence, budget meals became relevant not just to lower-income groups but to everyone who cared about cost of living. We are glad that the initiative has helped more families to stretch their household budget.

At the same time, we are mindful of the need to strike a balance between residents' needs for affordable food options and the operators' and stallholders' business sustainability. Unlike what Mr Leong Mun Wai has asserted, we do not require every stall in an HDB-owned coffee shop to offer budget meals. Generally, an operator of an HDB rental coffee shop is required to provide four to six budget meals.

This requirement can be met by different stalls in the coffee shop and it is also possible for there to be stalls within an HDB-owned coffee shop that do not participate in offering budget meals. Operators and stallholders have the flexibility to propose the budget meals that they wish to offer during the tender or tenancy renewal process and are at liberty to determine the prices of all other meals that they offer.

We are constantly engaging the industry and monitoring feedback from consumers as well as feedback from operators and stallholders and we are prepared to make adjustments to the scheme where necessary. Last year, HDB and GovTech worked together to launch the BudgetMealGoWhere website to help residents locate HDB coffee shops offering budget meals more easily and conveniently.

This website now includes listings of recommendations from the public, submitted through the Great Budget Meal Hunt, a related initiative which we launched earlier this year to crowdsource recommendations of budget meals in HDB coffee shops. In the past six months, 126 privately-owned HDB coffee shops have also started offering budget meals and drinks. We call these community budget meals.

Stalls in privately-owned HDB coffee shops that have voluntarily committed to provide budget meals will display the community budget meal decal in red and blue. More than 440 rental and privately-owned coffee shops are providing more than 1,100 budget meals island wide. This means that, on average, you can find budget meal options at one in two HDB coffee shops.

We are on track to have all 374 rental HDB coffee shops offer budget meals by 2026 and will continue to engage other operators of privately-owned coffee shops to come on board.

HDB supports budget meal providers in several ways.

First, for existing HDB rental coffee shop operators, we provide a 5% rent rebate for the first year of tenancy renewal to help them adjust to the new requirements of providing four budget food dishes and two budget drinks. The rebate starts as soon as the new requirements are in place and operators are required to pass on the rental discount to participating stall operators. We will intervene if stallholders tell us this did not happen.

Also, at the same time, HDB has kept stable the rent it has been collecting from its coffee shops. Over the last five years, HDB did not increase the rent for 97% of HDB-owned coffee shops at renewal.

We also stepped up efforts to raise publicity for these coffee shop operators and stalls. Not only do we want to raise awareness of the budget meals, but we also want to give recognition and generate interest so that more may visit these coffee shops and bring business to all stallholders.

In closing, Sir, although HDB coffee shops are regulated differently from hawker centres, we share the same commitment as MSE and NEA to maintain policies that deliver affordable food while being mindful of sustainable businesses and livelihoods. Sir, I support the proposed amendments to the Motion.

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon.

7.59 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Dr Koh Poh Koon): Mr Speaker, our hawker centres are an integral part of Singaporeans' daily lives and our national identity. They are vibrant melting pots of diverse and affordable local food that tell stories of Singapore, how different cultures interweave into a unique heritage of who we are as a people. They are community dining rooms where Singaporeans from all walks of life gather, socialise, interact over good food in an informal setting.

Hawker centres are special and quite different from food courts and restaurants. Our hawker centres are special because of the hawkers that make them come to life. They are our community kitchens, where hawkers thrive as masters of their craft to serve comfort food beloved by Singaporeans and famous worldwide.

These hawkers often specialise in specific heritage dishes, such as Hainanese chicken rice, Nyonya laksa, nasi lemak or roti prata. I know this is the time of the day when everyone gets hungry, but I just cannot help but mention some of these delicacies in our hawker centres.

Our hawkers work long hours, often more than 14 hours a day, especially on weekends and public holidays, to serve us our comfort food. Many have dedicated their lives to perfecting specific dishes, often passing down skills, special recipes and cultural traditions from one generation to the next.

Each dish is unique to a particular hawker stall because it is infused with the special recipe and the master touch of the hawker. The flavour of char kway teow from Hong Lim Park Hawker Centre is different from the one at Zion Riverside Food Centre and I like both of them. Yes, doctors do eat char kway teow as well, but I must say, please do it in moderation.

These two char kway teows, they are my favourites and, I am sure, they each have their own hardcore supporters. Like many of you, I go to different hawker centres to savour the authentic differences in flavour, even of the same dish. Each hawker centre has its own character and a different mix of food choices. This is why we all have our own choice of favourite hawker dishes, even our own choice of favourite hawker centres and we often debate endlessly on which hawker centre has the best chicken rice or where we can find the best nasi lemak.

While some hawkers have done well and opened stalls in other hawker centres, and some have even ventured out into the restaurant space, as noted by Mr Keith Chua, the vast majority of stalls at our hawker centres are generally run by stallholders themselves, who prepare each dish meticulously with their unique touches as it is ordered, and retain its individuality, unlike a franchise. So, we can all agree that if a hawker centre becomes replaced by franchises, the texture and the nature of a hawker centre as we know it today, will be quite different.

Hawker centres are such a unique and central part of our national identity that in December 2020, hawker culture in Singapore was inscribed onto the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

Singaporeans and Members of this House across both sides of the aisle will agree with me, that this unique Singaporean institution must be nurtured, supported and protected to ensure that our hawker centres and hawkers can thrive for generations to come. Some of our hawker heroes are gathered at the Gallery today – even at this time, some of them have stoically stayed on. I would like to acknowledge their presence and thank them for coming down today even as we discuss this important issue late into the evening. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

To keep this unique character of our hawker centres, our hawker policy will need to reflect three fundamental objectives and principles. First, to ensure that hawker centres remain our community dining room, providing Singaporeans with affordable food options. Second, to ensure hawkers have a decent livelihood and so, ensure that there is long-term sustainability of the hawker trade. Thirdly, to preserve our unique local hawker culture and the identity that is unique here.

These principles apply regardless of how we run our hawker centres, whether they are managed by NEA or by operators under our newer SEHC model. I will address the different operating models later in my speech.

I listened to Mr Leong Mun Wai's speech and that of many other Members today. No one will disagree with the three objectives I spelt out earlier. Each of them are important. But in trying to achieve all three objectives at the same time, we must recognise that there are inherent tensions that, sometimes, pull in opposite directions.

For instance, addressing consumers' desire for lower food prices can inadvertently run counter to our wish to support our hawkers in making a decent living. Without a decent income, it will be difficult to attract young Singaporeans, who have many career options, to enter this trade. Similarly, allowing more foreigners to work in our hawker centres may alleviate cost and manpower concerns for our hawkers, but it could dilute our local hawker culture and identity, and change the feel and nature of our hawker centres. As such, there is a need to strike a balance between the interests of all parties.

Singaporeans face cost-of-living pressures on many fronts, especially in recent years due to global inflation. Global food prices have been volatile in recent years due to supply chain disruptions resulting from climate change and geopolitical events. Several Members have said so as well. We feel this impact keenly because Singapore imports over 90% of our food.

Singaporeans are understandably concerned about how much they pay for food at our hawker centres. Hawkers, like all of us, also feel these pressures, as the cost of ingredients form a large part of their operating cost, as you have heard from some of the speakers earlier as well.

In pricing their food, many hawkers struggle between keeping food affordable for their loyal customers while trying to raise prices to cover the increases in ingredient and manpower costs. This is a struggle that many of us in the House, I believe, can empathise with.

I know that a good number of hawkers have kept their food prices unchanged over the years. One of our hawkers is here with us today. Mr Melvin Chew, who runs Jin Ji Teochew Braised Duck and Kway Chap at Chinatown Complex Market and Food Centre, shared with me recently, that he had maintained his food prices for over 20 years since the 2000s to offer $3 meals to his customers. While he had previously considered raising prices, I understand he decided to maintain his $3 meals to benefit the older folks staying in the area. It was only after the pandemic that he raised prices to $4 to cope with the rising business costs.

Another example is Mr Macheal s/o Aumeer Ali. Macheal sells wanton noodles at Tanglin Halt Market. He maintained his prices at $3.50 over five years to serve the seniors from Tanglin Halt Estate who form most of his clientele. Only in late-2023 did he increase prices to $4, due to rising costs over the years.

It is not easy for hawkers to earn a fair living. Our hawkers are generally mindful of the profile of the customers they serve and they try their best to hold off any price increases. But hawkers need to be able to price their food realistically and adjust them from time to time.

I echo the anecdote that Mr Edward Chia shared in his speech, about Mr Zuhairi who runs Project Penyek at Senja Hawker Centre. The worries shared by Mr Zuhairi about the rising cost of just one ingredient, chilli, as well as ingredient wastage when customers prefer just to eat the different part of a chicken, may sound quite trivial for us who wonder why there is so much fuss about just a little bit of extra sambal or picking the part of the chicken that we order. But these are the cost components that have a direct impact on a hawker's earnings, which are already not high to begin with.

Absorbing price increases of ingredients would effectively mean a pay cut for a hawker, on top of the already slim margins. I am sure many Singaporeans can empathise with this, even as price increases are not always easy to accept for anyone.

There is another dimension to this, which is that hawkers inherently face limitations to how much they can sell and earn, because they operate the stalls themselves. Many earn less than $1 per meal that is served. But let us take just for illustration, a hawker who manages to make a $1 profit per bowl of noodle he or she sells. He or she will need to sell 200 portions of meals a day for six days a week, in order to earn the $5,000 median income of an average Singaporean. Most do not sell as many meals or earn as much per portion of food they sell. As Mr Edward Chia's example has highlighted, many hawkers barely make 30-cents or 40-cents per meal that they sell.

Over the years, the income of a typical hawker has remained lower than the average Singaporean and corresponds to around the second lowest income decile, which means the lowest 20% in 2022. This low income is also a point noted by Mr Leong Mun Wai earlier in his speech.

Like everyone, our hawkers need an income that is sustainable over time. This has implications for the sustainability of the hawker trade. Today, the median age of our hawkers is 60 years old. As our ageing hawkers gradually retire, we will need new blood to sustain the hawker trade. At present, fortunately nearly all of our cooked food stalls are occupied. But if hawkers cannot make a decent livelihood, the hawker trade would become much less attractive to our younger generation who have many more career options. This is a point also noted by Mr Louis Chua earlier.

Another tension arises as we try to help hawkers manage their manpower costs while we seek to preserve the "local" identity of our hawker culture and heritage. Our policy of only allowing Singaporeans and PRs to be stallholders at hawker centres serves to safeguard this precious aspect of our Singaporean identity.

I recognise that our hawkers face the practical challenge of hiring non-locals to ease manpower constraints. But a full liberalisation for foreign manpower may alter the nature of our hawker centres significantly. So, these are competing tensions and there are, unfortunately, no easy solutions. Our recent moves seek to strike a careful balance, by allowing more LTVP or LTVP+ holders – who have nexus and ties to Singaporean families – to be stall assistants, which would hopefully help in some way.

The Government fully acknowledges the impact of global inflation on the affordability of hawker food and the livelihoods of hawkers. We know the difficult operating environment and challenges our hawkers face, as well as Singaporeans' desire for affordable hawker food. These are difficult tensions to balance and there is no simple solution or easy fix.

We agree with Mr Leong Mun Wai that the Government has a role to play in supporting our hawkers. That is what the Government has been doing. For decades now, since we gathered itinerant street hawkers into our hawker centres and, through our policies, sought to provide hawkers with a conducive operating environment.

As we have restarted building hawker centres from 2011, we set out to better address the needs of Singaporeans. In so doing, we also set out with a forward-looking mindset to test and explore new models that would allow us to safeguard hawker livelihoods and consumers' needs, while keeping our hawker centre landscape responsive to an evolving operating context. I will explain more about the SEHC model later.

We need to find a way, as a society, to keep hawker fare affordable, while ensuring that hawkers can earn a fair living. Underpinning this solution must be a strong social compact that brings all stakeholders together.

The Government foots the cost of building hawker centres and sets policies to support our hawkers and provide them with a conducive operating environment, to ensure that they are able to provide Singaporeans with affordable food at our hawker centres. The local community and private sector have a role in driving ground-up initiatives to support both hawkers and patrons and we heard many examples earlier. Consumers can support our hawkers by patronising them and being prepared to pay a fair price for hawker food to uplift the livelihoods of our hawkers.

The Government has implemented policies to support our hawkers by providing a conducive operating environment. We review these policies regularly to ensure that they are aligned with operating realities on the ground and for hawker centres to serve the needs of both hawkers and consumers. We recognise the cost pressures that hawkers face. In fact, according to an NEA survey, on average in 2023, cost of food ingredients accounts for nearly 60% of the operating cost. Manpower cost comes in second at 20%. Rental made up less than 10% of operating costs in hawker centres. Mr Leong Mun Wai also acknowledges that rent is not a major cost component in his speech earlier.

While Government does not regulate hawker food prices, NEA has measures in place to provide a conducive operating environment for hawkers.

First, on manpower costs, we have been paying close attention to two aspects: improving access to manpower and improving hawkers' productivity. The income of hawkers is very much dependent on how many meals they can serve a day, especially during peak hours. There is only so much that one pair of hands can do. We understand hawkers' challenges in hiring stall assistants. This is something we need to balance with safeguarding the local identity of our hawker culture. We do so by ensuring that being a stallholder at NEA's hawker centres remains reserved for Singapore Citizens and PRs. In doing so, we also ensure low barriers to entry for Singaporeans who wish to enter the F&B business through the hawker trade.

In Mr Leong Mun Wai and Mr Louis Chua's speeches earlier, they suggested allowing one Work Permit holder per stall to work as stall assistants. The suggestion is not inconceivable actually and there are real needs that the hawkers face in sourcing for manpower. But there are differences between hawker centres and other food establishments.

Private coffee shops and F&B establishments operate like SMEs, so they are subjected to the usual quota system that MOM applies to all operating businesses here in Singapore. Our hawker centres, on the other hand, are an integral part of our cultural heritage. They are unique and their local nature is something we want to preserve, which is why we thought very carefully about making such moves. This is why we calibrate any relaxation on restrictions on who can work at our hawker centres very carefully. As I have said earlier, full liberalisation of manpower in hawker centres would significantly alter the makeup and the feel of these centres.

There is really no science to this question. It is really about what we are all prepared to accept as a society. Are we prepared to accept that the hawker centre that we are familiar with changes in nature to something quite different? So, I think this is something that will probably have to evolve over time.

If Members recall, in the early 2010s, there was significant concern among Singaporeans about seeing more foreigners working in hawker centres. And this very issue was raised in this House, which Mr Edward Chia has earlier on also shared with Members what transpired in Parliament in 2010. So, we need to strike a balance. As some Singaporeans may still not be able to accept seeing a significant alteration in a make-up of hawker centres, we will adjust and evolve our policies to take these views into account.

Having said that, we do want to help ease some of the manpower challenges our hawkers face. This is why at Parliament last month, I had announced that starting from 1 January 2025, NEA will allow hawkers to hire LTVP or LTVP+ holders with Letters of Consent (LOC) or Pre-approved LOCs to work as their stall assistants at hawker centres managed by NEA and NEA-appointed operators, regardless of family ties.

Of course, many Members would be aware that prior to this, stallholders could only appoint such LTVP or LTVP+ holders to work as their stall assistants if they had a spousal relationship and even then, on a case-by-case basis. Now, hawkers can hire from an expanded pool of these potential stall assistants who are already part of a Singapore family nexus.

This is one example of how we continually review and adjust our policies to adjust to changing circumstances. But the reality is that each additional headcount is an added cost to our hawkers. So, a more sustainable approach to manpower is to make every person more productive. Therefore, NEA has implemented measures to support hawkers in enhancing their productivity, which can help lighten the pressures of their manpower constraints.

At the centre level, the Productive Hawker Centres (PHC) programme provides up to 70% tiered subsidy for centres to adopt centralised dishwashing for up to four years. At the individual stall level, the Hawkers' Productivity Grant (HPG) provides 80% co-funding for hawkers to purchase kitchen automation equipment and digital solutions, such as queue management systems.

A key business cost hawkers deal with is raw materials. Ms Hazel Poa raised the suggestion on centralised procurement to moderate such costs. This is not a new suggestion. I believe in an earlier Parliamentary Sitting, Mr Melvin Yong did raise one of these suggestions in a PQ. This centralised procurement idea is already present at some SEHCs, where operators have tapped on their network in the F&B and food supply sectors to offer bulk purchasing services. With such services, their stallholders have the option to secure preferential rates for raw ingredients.

But from our experience, there are limitations. So far, the uptake among stallholders has not been widespread as most already have established relationships with their existing suppliers or are quite particular about the source and quality of the ingredients. Remember what I said earlier about the unique nature of our hawker centres is that each stall is run by the hawkers themselves, with unique recipes and special touches. Everyone has something they want to put as special to differentiate themselves from their competitors. Nonetheless, we will continue to support such initiatives where it benefits our hawkers.

Apart from manpower, the Government has also implemented measures to ensure reasonable rent for hawkers and to address concerns on rent. By keeping rent affordable, we can help make the cost of doing business lower for our hawkers, even if it is not by a large percentage, because rent is less than 10% of the operating cost.

Generally, stall rentals at hawker centres are lower than nearby eating establishments, such as coffee shops, food courts and small eateries. For majority of cooked food stallholders in our hawker centres, the median rent is around $1,250 per month and has remained relatively stable for the past 10 years. This has been the case even while overall prices have continued to rise over the decade. This also means, therefore, that the rent is now a smaller component of their costs compared to 10 years ago.

The Government also extends generous subsidies to a segment of our Pioneer hawkers, who make up around 30% of cooked food stallholders. For them, the rent is heavily subsidised at about $300 per month and this can be transferred to the immediate family members of the pioneer hawkers at the same low rent. I believe Mr Melvin Chew whom I spoke about earlier is also a beneficiary of this legacy system.

Let me now touch on rent at NEA-managed hawker centres. The Government builds hawker centres and does not use rent for cost recovery. Let me say that again: the Government builds hawker centres and does not use the rent for cost recovery. The rents are, in fact, determined by what the tenderer bids for and can be as low as $1.

The PSP and Mr Louis Chua raised the issue of rent and the bidding system for stall rentals. Our policy is for non-subsidised stalls in NEA-managed hawker centres to be allocated via a tender system in which the stalls are tendered to the highest bidder, who pays the bid price for the first tenancy period of three years. This process is open, transparent and straightforward for prospective hawkers to understand. It is not a complicated system.

A bidding system enables market mechanisms to work at hawker centres. The process encourages prospective hawkers that are committed and serious to come forward and submit a bid. Before doing so, prospective hawkers would have to take into account the operating realities, business costs and decide on what kind of food they wish to sell.

They know that what they bid will be what they have to pay. Once the stall is opened, consumers will decide. The quality and the price of the food will determine how well the stall will fare and how sustainable the stall will be.

This market mechanism has helped to shape our current hawker centre landscape. It is responsive to consumers' demands and changing expectations for hawker food, and it is fair for both hawkers and consumers. Those who can offer tasty meals that consumers feel are value for money will continue to do well, while those who are priced too high and do not meet consumers' taste expectations will eventually exit.

This works in tandem with other measures by the Government to moderate hawker stall rents, which we regularly review and improve.

Today, there is no reserve rent or minimum bid price. This enables bidders to obtain stalls at low rental rates. In fact, over 300 stalls were obtained at bids below $100 over the last three years. A few in 2023 and 2024 even won bids with rents as low as $1. So, it is not a myth. There are stalls which are going at $1 bid price.

We saw that subletting of stalls led to higher rents in the past. So, we moved in 2012 to disallow such subletting.

After the first tenancy period of three years, rental is adjusted towards the Assessed Market Rent. We recently reviewed and changed this policy to stagger the downward adjustment of tendered rent over a longer period, in fact, over two tenancy renewals instead of one. This will also discourage prospective hawkers from putting in excessively high tender bids.

It is not a perfect system, but collectively, our rental policies at NEA-managed hawker centres have served us reasonably well. Occupancy rates for cooked food stalls have remained high, averaging above 95%.

In 2023, the median successful tender price for cooked food stalls was about $1,800 and about one in five cooked food stalls were awarded at tender prices at or below $500. So, some key numbers here. One in five awarded below $500; more than 300 stalls paying less than $100 a month, some even at $1. In fact, 44% of bidders were actually able to secure their bids below the Assessed Market Rent. So, our system has actually kept rental prices reasonably affordable; in fact, a good number below the Assessed Market Rent. Stall demand remains healthy: in fact, vacant stalls put up for tender received an average of 7.2 bids per stall and are successfully re-tendered within three to six months.

So, overall, the tender system is working. We have made recent changes and we expect to see some positive impact. We will continue to review, taking in suggestions and feedback from Members and from hawkers themselves to continue improving the system.

There are many views on the current price tender system model and what might be a better alternative that could replace it. Even the PSP itself has different views and proposed different options as well. For example, Mr Leong Mun Wai suggested one method based on percentage of gross turnover with a base rent. But this will require a point-of-sale system for every stall in order to be able to track what the takings really are. Ms Hazel Poa also proposed that we abandon the tender system and change it to a balloting one. She also suggested perhaps a fixed rent model as well. As Mr Keith Chua noted, there really would not be a perfect system. But we will keep trying. For example, we also started to do the price quality method at our SEHC models where rent is pre-determined and stalls are awarded by the operators. So, we are open to trying different methods and see what works best.

Let me take this chance to address some of the suggestions that Ms Poa has raised, one of which is to abandon the tender system to a balloting one. Again, this is not a new suggestion. I remember Mr Melvin Yong asking me in a PQ before, probably just about a couple of months ago. Let me explain that while balloting could provide an equal chance to all to obtain a stall at an upfront fixed rate, what balloting could also do is to encourage frivolous applications and excess demand for stalls at popular locations. This may not be fair to prospective tenderers with a genuine intent to set up a new stall because they will see their chances dwindle as more people come in and crowd into that space for a limited number of stalls. And such a situation will not benefit patrons as well.

Ms Poa also suggested a fixed rent model to keep rental costs under control. But the question we must ask is: what price will we use to predetermine the rent? Let us just say we use the assessed market rent, which is professionally determined by valuers. Then, in that case, all prospective hawkers will end up paying this price.

But under today's system, as you heard me say earlier, the tendered rent for about 44% of stalls is actually below the Assessed Market Rent, based on our 2023 data. In fact, as I said earlier, 20% pay less than $500. So, this will definitely help with their business costs. So, under a fixed rent model, close to about half of tenderers will see their rent much higher than it is today.

Mr Louis Chua also proposes a rental cap. I thought it is useful for us to understand how a rental cap could distort the market dynamics. If we set any cap threshold, we give the bidders the assurance that the bids will not go beyond a maximum ceiling. So, that is the upside of a rental cap. However, doing so could also encourage bidders to bid more competitively towards that threshold in order to outprice the competition to secure the stall. So, that could well mean the end of the $1 bid stalls that we have in the system today. This could in turn lead to overall bid prices trending higher and the whole allocation system will no longer be fair and meaningful. Even at less popular centres, the rental cap may also have an unintended consequence by inadvertently setting a price point that drive lower rentals upward toward the cap, as I have explained.

Mr Louis Chua also proposes the Government take back control of all hawker centres. I thank him for his confidence in the Government and the way we manage our hawker centres. In fact, today, the Government already oversees all hawker centres and we have been able to achieve reasonable rents and conducive environment for hawkers through our policies for ensuring accessible and affordable food options.

The Government has been responding to evolving needs and at different points in time, we have tried different management models in order to bring benefit to Singaporeans. While our systems are not perfect, we have worked in partnership with our hawkers and operators to address these. We will continue to listen and engage, and fine-tune what needs to be improved.

I must also say that we should allow some space for the private sector to thrive in this space so there is a diversity of options for both hawkers and consumers. Some hawkers eventually do venture out to other F&B spaces to scale and grow. So, I think we should not do it in a way that actually squeezes out the room for private sector to also be able to thrive in the scene.

At the end of the day, we must ensure that whatever we do is transparent, easily understood by the tenderers and will lead to better outcomes. We must make sure that the cure that we are all proposing is not going to be worse-off than the issue we are trying to resolve, to the detriment of hawkers and consumers.

As Mr Leong has also noted, rent is not really the major cost factor. What hawkers need is customers footfall and fair pricing so that they can have a decent margin and an income on the goods that they sell. Because even if the rent is free, no footfall equals to no income. So, we have to be quite clear that rent being a small component is not going to be the one that will make our hawkers fare better.

We continue to monitor the trends closely, as well as the attention that hawker stall rent has attracted recently. A small percentage of bids can be quite high, especially at popular hawker centres. For example, the recent bid for a stall at Marine Parade Central Food Centre that Members have mentioned.

I must say that this outlier bid is the only one at that level of $10,000 in the last five years. Out of our 7,000 cooked food stalls, only 4% of rent today are above the Assessed Market Rent of $1,250. [Please refer to "Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment", Official Report, 13 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 147, Correction By Written Statement section.]

This means that these people are still in the first tenancy term, because at the end of the third year, this 4% that is above the Assessed Market Rent on today's policy, will revert to the Assessed Market Rent.

So, we have to be quite careful not to abandon a system that has actually worked quite well and benefited many hawkers, just because of a small number of outliers.

There may be situations where prospective tenderers put in overly high bids upfront to secure their preferred stall, expecting their rents to be adjusted downwards to Assessed Market Rent after the first three years. Such bids may not be realistic and may distort prices over time, if they proliferate. So, while the numbers, as I said, are small today, other tenderers could be disadvantaged from entering the hawker trade. We want to nip this in the bud and discourage such extraordinarily high bids.

I announced last week that we will implement two measures to encourage more realistic bidding behaviour that better consider actual market conditions. First and quite important, we will make available more information and online business cost estimation tools. We are introducing this to assist and encourage tenderers to make a more informed decision and to bid realistically, when they submit a tender bid for a hawker stall. We are working on the details, which we plan to make public early next year.

However, some tenderers may still choose to submit excessively high bids and this is where our second measure comes in. We will stagger downward adjustment of tendered rent over a longer period, over two tenancy renewals instead of one. Doing so serves to deter prospective hawkers from submitting unrealistic bids. After the initial three years, stall rental will be adjusted to 50% of the difference between bid price and Assessed Market Rent when tenancy is renewed. This rental rate will be in place for three more years before fully adjusting to Assessed Market Rent from the seventh year onwards. This new policy takes effect from NEA’s ongoing tender exercise this month. I want to assure existing stallholders that you will not be affected.

Of course, we recognise this is not a cure-all and tenderers could still submit high bids, if they assess that they have a viable business model with that bid. Nonetheless, we hope that these changes will work hand-in-hand to encourage prospective hawkers to bid in a more considered and realistic manner moving forward. We will continue to monitor the tender bidding behaviours closely and review our tenancy policies from time to time to ensure that they stay relevant.

I would now like to turn to the issue of operating models. But before I do so, allow me to reiterate that regardless of how we manage our hawker centres, whether it is by NEA, or operators appointed under our SEHC model, our fundamental principles remain the same – hawkers and consumers remain at the heart of our policies.

There have been many comments about the SEHC model by Members today. Let me start by setting the context of why we first adopted the SEHC model.

In 2011, when we restarted building hawker centres, this was with Singaporeans in mind, to meet the community’s rising needs for access to a variety of food options at affordable prices, especially in areas under-served with F&B options.

Building hawker centres alone was not enough. We also needed to set up our new centres for success. This meant exploring new models and being open to different approaches that would allow us to achieve our objectives to safeguard hawker livelihoods and consumers’ needs, while adapting to an evolving operating context far different from when we first started building hawker centres to resettle street hawkers.

Foremost on our minds was to ensure that our new centres would be vibrant. Vibrancy is important not just to hawkers but consumers as well. There was a time when residents were unhappy that hawker centres were not opening long enough to serve their dining needs. In fact, this issue was raised before and debated in Parliament too, back in the 2000s. In recent years, we have also received feedback from residents and the community about operating hours for hawker centres and the need to ensure they are vibrant.

In short, managing hawker centres can be a complex undertaking. Hawker centres need to be vibrant with good visitorship and footfall. They need to provide a diverse food mix that responds to the evolving needs of changing demographics and be adaptable, and set up with the necessary conditions to be viable and sustainable for the long term. All these require the right business acumens to put together. Government agencies do not have the abilities or instincts to operate businesses.

This is the context for developing the SEHC model. We assessed the SEHC model to have various benefits.

First, SEHC operators possess industry knowledge and experience. They can leverage their expertise in F&B and stall management to ensure the vibrancy of new centres. Indeed, many have done so by developing a variety of localised programmes, including initiatives tailored to the community to drive visitorship and incubation programmes to provide business advice and support to aspiring hawkers.

Second, SEHC operators can leverage their F&B networks to curate food mix and support stallholders to fine-tune their menu, such as through food tastings. This supports both hawkers and consumers, allowing the hawker centres to feature food that meet patrons’ expectations, which in turn supports hawkers’ businesses.

Third, SEHC operators can introduce new and innovative practices to support stallholders in navigating changing operating contexts and industry developments, such as onboarding onto digital and online ordering platforms. This helps our hawker centres evolve and keep up with trends.

Good curation and visitorship are important ingredients for a vibrant hawker centre. These allow hawkers to thrive and earn a fair livelihood. In turn, when hawkers find it viable to operate stalls for longer hours, a centre can better meet the dining needs of the residents and community. These are the objectives that had to be met – and we believe can be met – by the SEHC management model.

As with any models, there will be operational issues that we need to continuously calibrate and make adjustments from time to time. We will continue to engage SEHC operators and hawkers to make necessary changes, as and when needed.

The SEHC model was put in place in 2011. Today, 14 out of our 121 hawker centres are managed by SEHC operators appointed by NEA. In developing the model, we sought to strike a balance between ensuring: patrons’ needs for a hawker centre are met, including access to affordable food options and meals across the day; and hawkers' needs for a conducive operating environment to make a reasonable livelihood. The SEHC operator pays Assessed Market Rent, but also bids for a management fee from the Government to operate the centre as part of the tender. So, the cost of operating an SEHC is partially borne by the Government. We have safeguards in place to ensure that operators do not profiteer and are expected to work closely with NEA as well as hawkers, to consider the interests and needs of both hawkers and residents.

In Mr Leong Mun Wai's speech earlier, he claimed that the operator of Jurong West Hawker Centre, JW50 Hawker Heritage, paid $4.86 million to Government to manage Jurong West Hawker Centre. I just want to clarify that this is actually incorrect. This amount is actually the management fee the Government pays to JW50 Hawker Heritage to run the centre which I have earlier mentioned. So, they do not pay us $4.86 million. We pay them $4.86 million.

In fact, NEA pays this to JW50 over a span of nine years. So, as you can see, this is at a significant cost that is borne by Government over time.

As you heard from Mr Ang Wei Neng earlier, when he shared about the Jurong West Hawker Centre, the hawkers who are there pay about $1,000-plus for rental, which is quite similar to what other hawkers in NEA-managed hawker centres also pay.

This kind of management model is also not the kind of business environment for hawkers that you could find in many other cities. Mr Leong gave the example of New York city. I believe that Mr KF Seetoh will be very familiar with the kind of high rental and labour costs that are faced by hawkers, given his experience with Urban Hawker in New York. I think Members who are interested can Google Mothership – there are quite a few articles written about this. I think Mr Edward Chia had shared earlier that some hawkers that are operating in New York face high rental costs, operating costs, ingredient costs, manpower costs and some of them have actually exited as well.

This is an illustration of how through our investment in hawker centres. Through our various policies, we have tried to keep costs low and manageable for hawkers here, so they can continue to thrive.

Let me talk about rent and operating costs in the SEHC model. When submitting tender proposals, prospective SEHC operators must also include their proposed stall rentals and other operating costs that would be charged to stallholders. To provide stability for stallholders, upon award of the tender, operators are not allowed to vary hawkers’ rent and other operating charges over the tenancy term and must keep costs transparent.

Furthermore, under NEA’s Staggered Rent Scheme, operators are required to implement lower rentals in the first two years of the centres’ operations at 80% and 90% of stall rent respectively. This helps new stallholders coming into these new centres manage operating costs as they build their clientele, while the centre gradually establishes itself.

Second, to ensure fair operating conditions for hawkers. I would like to address the specific concerns raised by Mr Leong about tenancy agreements. Such conditions are part of the tenancy agreements between the SEHC operators and the stallholders. The operators put in place the necessary conditions to account for the needs of the community. For example, operating hours specify that stallholders must open their stalls for a specific number of days and hours. This serves to ensure that centres would be vibrant and have sufficient stalls in operation to serve meals for residents throughout the day.

Nevertheless, conditions are also in place to take care of the well-being of our hawkers. NEA provided guidelines on the terms of such tenancy agreements, including on termination clauses, liquidated damages clauses and operating hours. For instance, on operating hours, stallholders are not required to work more than five days a week or eight hours a day. These are guidelines that operators need to comply with before using their tenancy agreements with stallholders. Operators are also required to explain the tenancy agreement to stallholders in simple terms for the stallholders' understanding, before they sign it. Once again, there is a fine balance needed to look after the interests of both our hawkers and our community, for whom hawker centres are built for.

Third, to ensure that operators serve the hawkers and the community in accordance with SEHCs’ agreement with NEA, operators must plough back at least 50% of any surpluses into programmes that benefit the hawker centres and/or their stallholders. You can imagine that SEHC operators may generate operating surpluses in some years and incur losses in some other years. But when surpluses are available, operators have run initiatives to raise footfall and business levels to benefit stallholders, such as providing shuttle bus services at Yishun Park Hawker Centre and organising festive events at Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre. Some operators have also tapped on their surpluses to help the stallholders reduce their operating costs, such as for cleaning.

Also, SEHC operators, as part of their tender proposals, must propose ways to ensure affordable food options are available. It is for the SEHC operators to propose and set a price. It is not for NEA to dictate what is a reasonable price. This is some flexibility we accord them and they will take market conditions into account when they put up a proposal.

So far, operators have committed that all stalls in their centres will provide at least one value meal option. This is not an attempt to force hawkers to sell all of their dishes at low prices. Instead, the intent is for operators to work with hawkers to offer a range of food offerings at different price points. This provides more choices for patrons if they want or need it and is especially intended to support those with lower-income.

However, value meals only account for around 5% to 20% of meals sold in SEHCs, so it is actually not the bulk of the revenue source for hawkers at SEHCs. Hawkers therefore still retain flexibility to offer other food items and sell them at appropriate prices, so that they can continue to earn an overall fair living.

Hawkers are not expected to make a loss selling value meals. SEHC operators can propose to revise the price of such value meals options, which NEA will review based on the market situation and the stallholders’ ability to make a fair livelihood. This has, in fact, been done before, at Ci Yuan Hawker Centre, where the price has been reviewed and adjusted, based on feedback from operators and hawkers.

NEA remains open to consider other suggestions that operators may propose, based on their viability and feasibility to ensure that sufficient affordable options are provided at the SEHCs. SEHC operators must also engage hawkers through regular Hawker Feedback Group sessions. These are held at least once every quarter, where operators gather feedback and ideas from their stallholders to improve the hawker centres and the hawkers’ livelihoods.

NEA has worked closely with hawkers and operators as well as other stakeholders to refine the SEHC model over the years. We will continue to listen to concerns and input to evolve and improve the model as we go along.

Sir, with our efforts over the years, the SEHC model is generally working well. Our SEHCs have brought overall benefits to hawkers and patrons alike, and are well-established within their communities. SEHC operators have curated food stalls in their SEHCs to ensure good quality and variety, and kept their centres open for all three meals to meet patrons’ dining needs. Average occupancy at SEHCs remains high with low stall turnover, comparable to NEA-managed centres.

While the comparison in termination numbers at SEHCs as compared to NEA-managed hawker centres cited by Mr Leong are factual – he said about 8% versus 3% – they do need to be put into context. The average termination rate cited for SEHCs, which is the 8% cited by Mr Leong, also accounted for new SEHCs that have just opened and are starting out. During this period, new centres tend to have some attrition and this is a natural part of business volatility. When businesses at new SEHCs move into a steady state, stall termination tend to stabilise and in fact, are no different compared to NEA-managed hawker centres.

There continues to be high interest in applying for stalls at SEHCs, such as those recently opened at Anchorvale, Buangkok and Woodleigh. Based on NEA’s recent surveys, over 97% of patrons and stallholders were overall satisfied with SEHCs, which is comparable to the satisfaction level at NEA-managed centres. Also, SEHCs have performed better in cleanliness, centre management and place-making activities.

Operating costs for stallholders at SEHCs, including rentals, remain manageable. The median stall rent at SEHCs is comparable to non-subsidised stalls at similar NEA-managed hawker centres. When comparing rental, it should not just be based on absolute rental, but one should also consider aspects such as stall size and amenities in the centre.

Nonetheless, we do not take all this for granted. We also recognise that some operators have done better while others have faced implementation challenges along the way, especially when they first get started. This is also why we renew the management of SEHCs via an open tender after the incumbent operators’ final tenancy term. It is a transparent process that allows incumbents that have done well to be considered favourably, while weeding out poorer-performing operators if necessary. Such a system enables healthy competition between the SEHC operators and motivates them to refine and improve their management models over time.

As we roll out the SEHC model to more new hawker centres, we will continue to monitor the implementation of the SEHC model closely and work with hawkers and operators to ensure that our new hawker centres continue to serve the interests of patrons well and ensure the well-being of our hawkers.

Next, I will address the concerns raised about the affordability of food at hawker centres. Today, our hawker centres across our island continue to provide the most affordable cooked food options for Singaporeans. That is why we often receive requests from residents to have a hawker centre in their neighbourhoods, even when it is already well served by other F&B outlets. As MPs on the ground, we often get such requests.

Our key focus therefore must be to ensure a sufficient supply of hawker stalls to cater to residents in all regions. We are committed to doing so and we will continue maintaining our existing hawker centres as we as we build new ones. Fourteen new centres are currently in operation and the locations of the other six centres have been announced.

The Government does not directly regulate or control food prices across the board. Doing so would also distort the true cost of hawker food, which would in turn depress our hawkers’ earnings. This would result in an unsustainable hawker trade, discourage new hawkers from joining the trade and would eventually affect everyone if affordable hawker food becomes less available. It is not prudent in the long run and hawkers would bear the brunt while also experiencing the same cost-of-living pressures just like everyone else.

We have to be careful about over-regulating across the board. Broadly speaking, market competition is an important self-regulating force for hawker food prices. We have been talking about affordable food, but “affordable” might not necessarily equate to “cheap”. They are actually two different things. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, hawkers consider various factors when pricing their food, including operating costs and the need to remain competitive with other stalls. I have spoken to hawkers, a young hawker, one of them, Darren, who shared that many of them practise what he would say “honest pricing”, in which they price their food to reflect the true cost and quality of ingredients, and apply a reasonable but modest profit margin to sustain their livelihood. Hawkers know that consumers are discerning and they need to be honest with their pricing.

In allowing the market to function, another hawker, Mr Noorman from Nasi Lemak Ayam Taliwang, I think he is there in the gallery as well, he said, "We can let our hawkers and their customers find the right balance of where the price point for hawker food should be". And over time, this enables a sustainable hawker centre landscape that is responsive to both hawkers’ and consumers’ needs.

To help Singaporeans cope with cost-of-living concerns, you heard from Senior Parliamentary Secretary Shawn Huang earlier that the Government has introduced broad-based measures such as providing CDC Vouchers under the enhanced Assurance Package. As you heard, these vouchers can be used at participating hawker stalls, to help both the households and the hawkers. Thus far, around $650 million of CDC Vouchers that has been disbursed have been used at participating heartland shops, including stalls across all hawker centres.

I am heartened to hear from Mr Edward Chia’s speech that hawkers at Senja Hawker Centre shared that these CDC Vouchers have contributed directly to their revenue and brought in new customers for their businesses. The Government is looking at more ways that we can support Singaporeans and hawkers, and will announce more details when ready.

I am also heartened that many businesses and community groups are also stepping up and doing their part to help Singaporeans and hawkers. Various MPs also shared their local initiatives, but I will just share maybe a couple more.

In 2023, the Marine Parade Citizens’ Consultative Committee, the Marine Parade Merchant’s Association and Katong Joo Chiat Business Association worked together with some hawkers in three hawker centres and coffee shops to launch a Value Meal@Marine Parade initiative for patrons. In September 2024, the Marine Parade constituency also launched the Marine Parade Family Vouchers for eligible families to use at its neighbourhood merchants, markets and hawker centres.

These are measures, ground-up activities that also go to help both those in need and the hawkers themselves. Meaningful ones. The private sector has also introduced similar initiatives, and you heard from Mr Chia earlier, for example, DBS’ ongoing Support Our Heartlands initiative and their earlier "5 Million Hawker Meals" scheme that was shared. I am deeply encouraged by these initiatives which support our hawkers and the broader community, and I hope to see many more of them as we continue to uplift and safeguard our hawker culture.

I agree with Mr Leong, that to safeguard our hawker trade for future generations, one of our key priorities is to nurture a new generation of young hawkers to take over the reins. To attract more Singaporeans to join the hawker trade, we need to first ensure that hawkers are able to earn a fair living, work in a clean and comfortable environment, and receive the support that they require. These underpin our policies, as I have mentioned earlier.

NEA has been working closely with hawkers and stakeholders to attract new hawker entrants and equip them with skillsets to boost their chances of success. This includes three key programmes that NEA runs to help aspiring hawkers to kickstart their businesses: the Incubation Stall Programme, Hawkers’ Development Programme and the Hawkers Succession Scheme.

Mr Leong and Mr Louis Chua proposed setting up a hawker academy to be a focal point for training young aspiring hawkers in Singapore. In fact, we already have a similar academy in place. Under our current Hawkers Development Programme, NEA and SkillsFuture Singapore appoints the Asian Culinary Institute under Nanyang Polytechnic to provide training to aspiring hawkers and equip them with the necessary skills for their businesses, such as business strategy and business pricing. So, that concept is already in action today.

We are encouraged to see aspiring hawkers enter the trade through these means, with some choosing to preserve traditional recipes, while others infuse new, creative and innovative ideas to modernise hawker fare. This diversity contributes to the richness and depth of our evolving hawker culture.

Furthermore, SEHC operators also run various incubation programmes to support their stallholders to ease into the hawker trade. After all, it is in their interest to make sure that the hawkers succeed in their centres. For example, Fei Siong Social Enterprise Pte Ltd introduced the Entrepreneurship Programme at Woodleigh Village Hawker Centre. The programme provides mentorship and support for young hawkerpreneurs in areas such as culinary skills, stall set-up, menu creation and marketing activities. Fei Siong also provided financial assistance, such as purchasing cooking equipment at interest-free instalments.

Collectively, the programmes by NEA and SEHC operators have helped to inject younger entrants into the hawker scene. To date, over 70 hawkers have joined the trade through these programmes, with a median age of 37. We will continue to review the programme outcomes and identify other areas to better encourage and support aspiring hawkers to enter and stay in the hawker trade. We will provide more details next year.

Mr Leong proposed that hawker centre management be taken over by a new Government agency to be called Hawker Singapore. Again, I thank him for putting his trust in the Government to manage our hawker centres well. But in fact, I would say that we already have a dedicated division now in NEA called the Hawker Centres Group looking after this with place managers on the ground that interact closely with our hawkers. Therefore, what he is proposing is a re-organisation of an existing dedicated team that is already functioning.

But what is more important is that whatever entity that oversees the management of hawker centres should be plugged in to the day-to-day concerns of individual centres and be responsive to its evolving needs. This is what our place managers does on a day-to-day basis, and our SEHC operators are also able to do this, too. NEA works closely with hawkers, as well as industry associations, like the Federation of Merchant Associations of Singapore, and we assign place managers to each hawker centre so that the nexus is tight.

I turn back now to the Motion that is being debated today. Sir, external circumstances, such as inflation, have presented challenges for our hawkers and Singaporeans alike, especially in recent years. We deeply understand these sentiments. For hawkers, increases in operating costs, especially for ingredients, can mean having to absorb some of these costs or making the difficult decision to raise prices for customers.

For Singaporeans, having to pay 50 cents or a dollar more for hawker meals could feel like a dent in their wallets, as prices of other daily essentials also add up. As the Government, and with the support of our local community and the private sector, we are doing what we can to mitigate the impact of these rising costs.

I want to thank Members who have acknowledged the practical realities we operate in and for reaffirming the Government's efforts to do right by our hawkers. At the heart of the debate today is how we can sustain and grow our invaluable hawker culture so that it continues to thrive. This is something that the Government is fully committed to do. But we must recognise that there are often competing objectives and, as consumers, we can all play an important role in this, too.

Many Singaporeans are worried about the impact of global inflationary pressures on the cost of living, and understandably so. However, for hawkers to earn a fair living, they need to price food realistically. While price increases are not always easy to accept, we must remember that how much a hawker can sell a bowl of rice or noodles for is dependent on how much Singaporeans are prepared to pay. Ultimately, hawkers need the support of consumers. We must form a strong social compact to ensure that our hawker culture can continue to thrive and Singaporeans can continue to enjoy hawker fare for many more generations to come.

Mr Speaker, allow me to conclude. We all want our hawker centres and hawker culture to continue to thrive, but it entails a fine balancing act. Overall, the Government has taken a calibrated and long-term view in crafting our policies. We have put in place comprehensive measures that strike a careful balance between ensuring affordable hawker food options and supporting hawkers with a conducive business environment, while also safeguarding the long-term sustainability of the hawker trade, local hawker culture and heritage. This would not have been possible without the readiness and commitment from our hawkers and hawker associations to work with the Government. I thank them for their input and their partnership, which have helped us improve our policies to balance between competing objectives and chart the best way forward for both hawkers and Singaporeans. We may not always get this right the first time. With your inputs and feedback, and as circumstances change, we will review and adjust our policies. We have done so in the past and we will continue to fine-tune and improve.

What is important in all of these adjustments is that our hawkers must be able to earn a fair livelihood. This is critical for our hawker culture to thrive for a long time. Without our hawkers as torchbearers, our hawker centres will be empty and our hawker culture will disappear. This is why I support the proposed amendment from Mr Edward Chia. I invite Members to join me in expressing support as well, because Mr Chia is right that the Government should continue its support for hawkers and hawker culture so that Singaporeans can continue to enjoy good and affordable hawker food while ensuring that hawkers can earn a fair livelihood.

The year 2025 will be our 60th year as an independent country. It will also mark the fifth anniversary since the UNESCO inscription for hawker culture in Singapore. Hawkers have always played an integral role in building our country and hawker culture has been an important part of our national Singaporean identity. As I announced last week at the Singapore Hawkers Seminar and Awards, in conjunction with these milestones, the Government will be reviewing measures to further support hawkers and revitalise our hawker culture. We will announce more details during the Committee of Supply debates next year.

To Members of this House and to all Singaporeans, I want to assure you that safeguarding our hawker culture remains an important priority for this Government. We are committed to work together with our hawker community and our stakeholders to do so. Together, we can sustain our hawker culture to thrive for generations to come. Sir, allow me to speak in Mandarin now.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, our hawker centres are an integral part of Singaporeans' daily lives and our cultural identity. They are vibrant melting pots of diverse and affordable local food that tell stories of Singapore – how different cultures interweave into a unique heritage of who we are as a people. They are community dining rooms, where Singaporeans from all walks of life gather, socialise and interact over good food in an informal setting. Hawker centres are special and quite different from food courts and restaurants. Our hawker centres are special because of the hawkers that make them come to life. They are our community kitchens where hawkers thrive as masters of their craft to serve comfort food beloved by Singaporeans and known worldwide.

These hawkers often specialise in specific local dishes such as Hainanese chicken rice, nasi lemak, Nyonya laksa or roti prata. They work long hours, often more than 14 hours a day especially on weekends and public holidays to serve us our comfort food. Many have dedicated their lives to perfecting specific dishes, often passing down skills, recipes and cultural traditions from one generation to the next.

Each dish is unique to a particular hawker stall. The flavor of char kway teow from Hong Lim Park Hawker Centre is different from the one at Zion Riverside Food Centre and I like both of them. They are my favorites and they each have their own die-hard followers. Like many of you, I go to different hawker centres to savour the authentic differences of the same dish. Each hawker centre has its own character and a different mix of food choices.

This is why we all have our own choice of favorite hawker dishes and often debate endlessly on which hawker centre has the best chicken rice and where the best nasi lemak can be found.

While some hawkers have done well and opened stalls in other hawker centres, and some have even ventured out into the restaurant space, the vast majority of stalls at our hawker centres are generally run by stallholders themselves, preparing each meal with their unique touches as it is ordered and retaining its individuality, unlike a franchise.

Hawker centres are such a unique and central part of our national identity that in December 2020, hawker culture in Singapore was inscribed onto the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

I think Singaporeans and Members across both sides of the aisle will agree, that this unique Singaporean institution must be nurtured, supported and protected, to ensure that our hawker centres and hawkers can thrive for generations to come. Some of our hawker heroes are gathered at the gallery today – I would like to show appreciation to their contributions and welcome and thank them for coming down today as we discuss this important issue.

To keep this unique character of our hawker centres, our hawker policy will need to reflect three fundamental objectives and principles: to ensure that hawker centres remain our community dining room, providing Singaporeans with affordable food options; to ensure hawkers have a decent livelihood and so ensure that there is long-term sustainability of the hawker trade and attract young people to join the trade; and to preserve our unique local hawker culture and identity.

I think no one will disagree with these objectives. Each of them are important. But in trying to achieve all three objectives at the same time, we must recognise that there are inherent tensions that sometimes pull in opposite directions. For instance, addressing consumers’ desire for lower food prices can inadvertently run counter to our wish to support our hawkers in making a decent living. Without a decent income, it will be difficult to attract young Singaporeans who have many career options to enter this trade. Similarly, allowing more foreigners to work in our hawker centres may alleviate cost and manpower concerns for our hawkers, but it could dilute our local hawker culture and identity and change the feel of our hawker centres. As such, there is a need to strike a balance between the interests of all parties.

Singaporeans face cost-of-living pressures on many fronts, especially in recent years due to global inflation. Global food prices have been volatile in recent years due to supply chain disruptions resulting from climate change and geopolitical events. We feel this impact keenly because Singapore imports over 90% of our food. Singaporeans are understandably concerned about how much they pay for food at our hawker centres. Hawkers, like all of us, also feel these pressures, as the cost of ingredients form a huge part of their cost, which is 60% to 70%.

In pricing their food, many hawkers struggle between keeping food affordable for their loyal customers while having to raise prices to cover the increases in ingredient and manpower costs. This is a struggle that many of us in the House empathise with.

I know that a good number of hawkers have kept their food prices unchanged over the years. One of our hawkers, Mr Melvin Chew, who runs Jin Ji Teochew Braised Duck and Kway Chap at Chinatown Complex Market and Food Centre, shared with me that he had maintained his food prices for over 20 years since the 2000s to offer $3 duck rice to customers. I understand he tried to maintain his $3 meals to benefit the older folks staying in the area. It was only after the pandemic that he raised prices to $4 to cope with rising business costs.

It is not easy for hawkers to earn a fair living. Our hawkers are generally mindful of the profile of the customers they serve and they try their best to hold off raising prices of their food. But hawkers need to be able to price their food realistically and adjust them from time to time. Absorbing price increases of ingredients would effectively mean a pay cut for a hawker, on top of slim profit margins. I am sure many Singaporeans can empathise with this, even as price increases are not always easy to accept.

There is another dimension to this, which is that hawkers inherently face limitations to how much they can sell and earn, because they operate the stall themselves. Many earn less than $1 per meal served. But let us take, for example, a hawker who manages to make a $1 profit per bowl of noodle. He or she will need to sell 200 portions a day for six days a week, in order to earn the $5,000 median salary of Singaporeans. Most do not sell as many meals or earn as much per meal. As Mr Edward Chia’s example has highlighted, many hawkers barely make a 30-cent or 40-cent margin per meal they sell.

Like everyone, our hawkers need an income that is sustainable over time. This has implications for the sustainability of the hawker trade. Today, the median age of our hawkers is 60 years old. As our ageing hawkers gradually retire, we will need new blood to sustain the hawker trade. But if hawkers cannot make a decent livelihood, the hawker trade would become much less attractive to our younger generation who have many more career options.

Another tension arises as we try to help hawkers manage their manpower costs while we seek to preserve the “local” identity of our hawker culture and heritage. Our policy of only allowing Singaporeans and PRs to be stallholders at hawker centres serves to safeguard this precious aspect of our Singaporean identity. I recognise that our hawkers face the practical challenge of hiring non-locals to ease manpower constraints. But a full liberalisation for foreign manpower may alter the nature of our hawker centres significantly. These are competing tensions and there are no easy solutions.

We know the difficult operating environment and challenges our hawkers face, as well as Singaporeans’ desire for affordable hawker food. These are difficult tensions to balance. And there is no simple solution or easy fix.

We agree with Mr Leong that the Government has a role to play in supporting our hawkers. That is what the Government has been doing. For decades now, since we gathered itinerant street hawkers into our hawker centres, and, through our policies, sought to provide hawkers with a conducive operating environment. And as we restarted building hawker centres from 2011, we set out to better address the needs of Singaporeans. In so doing, we also set out with a forward-looking mindset to test and explore new models that would allow us to safeguard hawker livelihoods and consumers’ needs, while keeping our hawker centre landscape responsive to an evolving operating context. I will explain more about the SEHC model later.

We need to find a way as a society to keep hawker fare affordable, while ensuring that hawkers can earn a fair living. Underpinning this solution must be a strong social compact that brings all stakeholders together. The Government foots the cost of building hawker centres and sets policies to support our hawkers and provide them with a conducive operating environment, to ensure that they are able to provide Singaporeans with affordable food at our hawker centres. The local community and private sector have a role in driving ground-up initiatives to support both hawkers and patrons and consumers can support our hawkers by patronising them and being prepared to pay a fair price for hawker food to uplift the livelihoods of our hawkers.

Let me now touch on rent at NEA-managed hawker centres. The Government builds hawker centres and does not use rent for cost recovery. The rents are determined by what the tenderer bids for. Our policy is for non-subsidised stalls in NEA-managed hawker centres to be allocated via a tender system, in which stalls are tendered to the highest bidder, who pays the bid price for the first tenancy period of three years. This process is open, transparent and straightforward for prospective hawkers to understand.

A bidding system enables market mechanisms to work at hawker centres. The process encourages prospective hawkers that are committed and serious to come forward and submit a bid. Before doing so, prospective hawkers have to take into account operating realities and business costs and decide on what food they wish to sell. Once a stall is open, consumers will decide. The quality and price of food will determine how well the stall fares and how sustainable the stall will be. This market mechanism has helped to shape our current hawker centre landscape. It is responsive to consumers’ demands and changing expectations for hawker food, and fair for both hawkers and consumers.

This works in tandem with other measures by the Government to moderate hawker stall rents, which we regularly review and improve. Today, there is no reserve rent or minimum bid prices. This enables bidders to obtain stalls at low rental rates. In fact, over 300 stalls were obtained at bids below $100 over the last three years – a few in 2023 and 2024 won bids with rent as low as $1! After the first tenancy period of three years, rental is adjusted towards the Assessed Market Rate. We recently reviewed and changed this policy to stagger the downward adjustment of tendered rent over a longer period. This will also discourage prospective hawkers from putting in excessively high tender bids.

Collectively, our rental policies at NEA-managed hawker centres have served us well. However, any system will have its pros and cons. For example, some Opposition Members have suggested that we abandon the tender system to a balloting one or other options. Let me first explain the benefits of a bidding system.

While balloting could provide an equal chance to all to obtain a stall at an upfront fixed rate, what balloting could also do is to encourage frivolous applications and excess demand for stalls, especially at popular centres. This may not be fair to prospective tenderers with genuine intent to set up a new stall as they see their chances dwindle.

Others have suggested a fixed rent model to keep rental costs under control. But what price will we use to pre-determine the rent? Let us say we use the Assessed Market Rate. Then all prospective hawkers will end up paying this price. But under today’s system, the tendered rent for about 44% of stalls is below the Assessed Market Rate, based on 2023 data; 20% of bidders pay rents below $500. This low rent helps with their business costs. If we adopt a fixed rent model, then nearly 50% of hawkers will pay much higher rentals.

We will stay open to consider different models. In fact, we have tried out price-quality models at SEHCs where the rent is predetermined, and stalls are curated by the operators. In summary, when making policies, we must ensure transparency so that bidders can understand easily, while also bringing better outcomes.

We continue to monitor the trends closely, as well as the attention that hawker stall rent has attracted recently. A small percentage of bids can be quite high, especially at popular hawker centres, for example, the recent bid for a cooked food stall at Marine Parade Central Food Centre which exceeded $10,000. There may be situations where prospective tenderers put in overly high bids upfront to secure their preferred stall, expecting their rents to be adjusted downwards to Assessed Market Rate after the first three years.

I announced last week that we will implement two measures, to encourage more realistic bidding behaviour that better consider actual market conditions. First, we will make available more information and online business cost estimation tools. We are introducing this to assist and encourage tenderers to make a more informed decision and bid realistically. However, some tenderers may still choose to submit excessively high bids.

Hence, we will stagger downward adjustment of tendered rent over a longer period. Doing so serves to deter prospective hawkers from submitting unrealistic bids. After the initial three years, stall rental will be adjusted to 50% of the difference between bid price and Assessed Market Rate when tenancy is renewed. This rental rate will be in place for three more years before fully adjusting to AMR from the seventh year onwards.

Nonetheless, we hope that these changes will work hand in hand to encourage prospective hawkers to bid in a more considered and realistic manner moving forward. We will continue to monitor the tender bidding behaviours closely and review our tenancy policies from time to time to ensure that they stay relevant.

There have been many comments about the SEHC model by Members today. I want to reiterate that regardless of how we manage our hawker centres, whether it is by NEA or operators under our SEHC model, our fundamental principles remain the same. Hawkers and consumers remain at the heart of our policies.

In 2011, we restarted building hawker centres. This was with Singaporeans in mind, to meet the community’s rising needs for access to a variety of food options at affordable prices. Building hawker centres alone was not enough. We also needed to set up our new centres for success. This meant exploring new models and being open to different approaches that would allow us to achieve our objectives to safeguard hawker livelihoods and consumers’ needs while adapting to an evolving operating context.

In addition, foremost on our minds was to ensure that our new centres would be vibrant. There was a time when residents were unhappy that hawker centres were not opening long enough to serve their dining needs. In fact, this issue was raised before and debated in Parliament too, back in 2010. In recent years, we have also received feedback from residents and the community about operating hours for hawker centres.

This is the context for developing the SEHC model. We assessed the SEHC model to have various benefits. First, SEHC operators possess industry knowledge and experience. They can leverage their expertise in F&B and stall management to ensure the vibrancy of new centres. Second, SEHC operators can leverage their F&B networks to curate food mix and support. Third, SEHC operators can introduce new and innovative practices to support stallholders in navigating changing operating contexts and industry developments, such as onboarding onto digital and online ordering platforms.

Good curation and visitorship are important ingredients for a vibrant hawker centre. These allow hawkers to thrive and earn a fair livelihood, and as a result, a hawker centre can better meet the dining needs of the residents and community. We believe these objectives can be met by the SEHC management model.

As with all models, there will be operational issues that we need to continuously calibrate and make adjustments from time to time. We will continue to engage SEHC operators and hawkers to make changes where necessary.

Today, 14 out of our 121 hawker centres are managed by SEHC operators appointed by NEA.

In developing the model, we sought to strike a balance between ensuring patrons’ needs for affordable food options and meals and hawkers' needs for a conducive operating environment. We have safeguards in place to ensure that operators do not profiteer and are expected to work closely with NEA as well as hawkers, to consider the interests and needs of both hawkers and residents.

First, on rent and operating costs. When submitting tender proposals, prospective SEHC operators must also include their proposed stall rentals and other operating costs charged to stallholders. Upon award of the tender, operators are not allowed to vary hawkers’ rent and other operating charges. Furthermore, under NEA’s Staggered Rent Scheme, operators are required to implement lower rentals in the first two years of the centres’ operation.

Second, to ensure fair operating conditions for hawkers. Such conditions are part of the tenancy agreements between the SEHC operators and the stallholders. For example, operating hours specify that stallholders must open their stalls for a specific number of days and hours. This serves to ensure that centres would be vibrant and have sufficient stalls in operation to serve meals for residents throughout the day. Nonetheless, conditions are also in place to take care of the well-being of our hawkers. For instance, on operating hours, stallholders are not required to work more than five days a week or eight hours a day. These are guidelines that operators need to comply with, and operators are also required to explain the tenancy agreement to stallholders in simple terms for stallholders’ understanding before they sign it.

Third, to ensure that operators serve the hawkers and the community. In accordance with SEHCs’ agreement with NEA, operators must plough back at least 50% of any surpluses into programmes that benefit the hawker centres and their stallholders. Operators have run initiatives to raise footfall and business levels to benefit stallholders, such as providing shuttle bus services at Yishun Park Hawker Centre and organising festive events at Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre. Operators have committed that all stalls in their centres will provide at least one value meal option. I would like to emphasise that value meals only account for around 5% to 20% of meals sold in SEHCs. Hawkers still retain flexibility to offer other food items and sell them at appropriate prices, so that they can continue to earn an overall fair living. Hawkers are not expected to make a loss selling value meals. SEHC operators can propose to revise the price of such value meals options, which NEA will review based on the market situation and stallholders’ ability to make a fair livelihood.

With our efforts over the years, the SEHC model is generally working well. Based on NEA’s recent surveys, over 97% of patrons and stallholders were overall satisfied with SEHCs. Average occupancy at SEHCs remains high with low stall turnover and there continues to be high interest in applying for stalls at new SEHCs.

Nonetheless, we do not take all this for granted. We also recognise that some operators have have faced implementation challenges along the way, especially when they first started. This is also why we renew the management of SEHCs via open tender after the incumbent operators’ final tenancy term. It is a transparent process that allows incumbents that have done well to be considered favourably, while weeding out poorer-performing operators if necessary. Such a system enables healthy competition between the SEHC operators and motivates them to refine and improve their management models over time.

As we roll out the SEHC model to more new hawker centres, we will continue to monitor the implementation of the SEHC model closely and work with hawkers and operators to ensure that our new hawker centres continue to serve the interests of patrons well and ensure the well-being of our hawkers.

External circumstances such as inflation have presented challenges for our hawkers and Singaporeans alike, especially in recent years. We deeply understand these sentiments. For hawkers, increases in operating costs, especially for ingredients, can mean having to absorb some of these costs or making the difficult decision to raise prices for customers. For Singaporeans, having to pay 50 cents or a dollar more for hawker meals could feel like a dent in their wallets, as prices of other daily essentials also go up.

As Members have mentioned, the Government, with the support of our local community and private sector, are doing what we can to mitigate the impact of these rising costs.

The core of today's debate is how to ensure our hawker culture continues to thrive. The Government will spare no effort in supporting hawkers and the hawker trade. Consumers also play a crucial role. Many Singaporeans are concerned about the impact of global inflation on the cost of living. However, for hawkers to earn a decent income, they must consider the reality and set reasonable prices for their food. Hawkers need consumer support. We must establish a strong social compact to ensure that hawker culture can flourish.

Hawker centres are our community dining rooms, providing affordable food for Singaporeans. It is because of the efforts of generations of hawkers that Singapore's cuisine has become world-renowned. After Singapore's Independence in 1965, resources were invested to gradually relocate street vendors to hawker centres so that hawkers could operate their businesses safely, comfortably and hygienically in a conducive environment, while diners could eat happily with a peace of mind. With changing times, the Government has continuously explored different operating models, so that hawker centres can keep pace with the times, adjust to the changing business environment and safeguard hawkers' livelihoods while meeting consumers’ needs.

The Government appreciates hawkers' contributions and understands the various challenges they face, including rising cost pressures and changing consumer needs. The Government is committed to continue listening to feedback and to review and improve relevant policies with an open mind, with the aim to ensure hawkers' livelihoods and the long-term sustainability of the hawker trade and attract younger generations of Singaporeans to join this profession. Of these many goals, one is also to preserve our unique local hawker culture and ensure it is not replaced by franchises. We will also work closely with hawkers and value their feedback. Here, I want to pay tribute to our hardworking and resilient hawkers! Let us work together to support and protect our hawker culture, so that it can thrive for generations to come.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.

9.36 pm

Ms Hazel Poa: Allow me to first correct a misunderstanding by Senior Minister of State Koh. He mentioned that there is an inconsistency in our proposals for rent between mine and Mr Leong Mun Wai's. I just want to clarify that there is no inconsistency. In my speech, I used the term pre-determined rent, not fixed rent. So, pre-determined is either a fixed rent of $500 per month or 3% of gross revenue. In my English version, I did not go into the details because it was already covered by Mr Leong. But in my Chinese portion, I did mention this.

I have two clarifications for Senior Minister of State Koh. He mentioned that the Government will ensure that the SEHC operators do not profit excessively. Can I ask how the Government does that? Do you monitor the profitability level of the operators, for example, their return on equity ratios? If so, can Senior Minister of State Koh share the data?

The second clarification is: he mentioned that NEA has guidelines on rental contracts. Can I ask whether there is any legal force behind those guidelines? What are the consequences if rental contracts deviate from those guidelines?

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, in the model in which we work with the SEHC operators, we pay them a management fee so that they actually can operate the hawker centres. If there are any extra profits that they gain, 50% of it must then, as I said in my main reply, be put into providing programmes that enhance the activities of the hawker centre. So, there will be an audit conducted by NEA on their actual earnings so that we can make that decision and make sure that there is no extra profiteering involved. Sorry, can I have the Member's second question?

Mr Speaker: Ms Poa, do you want to turn on your mic?

Ms Hazel Poa: The NEA guidelines on contract terms, whether there is any legal force behind it and what are the consequences for deviating from those guidelines?

Dr Koh Poh Koon: I think the guidelines are meant to guide the behaviour between the operator and the hawkers that are working at this hawker centre. So, if there are issues in which the contract that is drafted is actually in violation of the guidelines, NEA will take a look at it and give relevant penalties. Or should the offence be egregious, at the next contract renewal term, this operator will not be favourably looked upon and the operator will not be able to get the next contract renewal.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua, you have a clarification?

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis: My apologies, Speaker, for prolonging this, but just a few clarifications.

First, in terms of the point on hiring of foreign workers, I appreciate the Senior Minister of State's point of not ruling it out. But I mean, as mentioned in my speech, if we look at, for example, just any other food court that we have, I think foreigners already run stalls. So, as an intermediate step, would the Government consider allowing Malaysian work pass holders to work in our hawker centres, because I mean, as HDB policy suggests, Malaysians are already quite culturally similar, so they are exempt from SPR quotas and all of that.

Secondly, in terms of the price tender system, again, I mentioned the PQM model, which Senior Minister of State Sim Ann has acknowledged and I think Member Mr Liang has also talked about. So, given that this is already being practised by a lot of Government agencies like HDB, Town Council and so on, would it consider a pilot for hawker centres which are particularly notorious for high rents, whether it is Marine Parade or Newton?

In a similar vein, given concerns about the highest price bidder actually winning the tender, could the Government also consider a pilot whereby it could consider second price tenders instead, whereby the winner will still be the highest bidder, but they will pay the second bid? And this will help to mitigate some of the concerns that Senior Minister of State has raised. I think my colleague, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, has also talked about this in the context of HDB coffee shops.

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank the Member for raising this clarification. I think on the issue of foreign workers, in my speech, I did say that actually, there is no science to it. It is about what society can accept over time as the population ages, workforce dwindles and the nature of hawker centres may evolve and the society is prepared to accept.

But now we have just made a move to liberalise through LTVP+. So, that provides an additional expanded source of potential labour that the hawkers can tap into. Let us see what this move does and what the effect is first, before we decide whether it is appropriate to make further moves.

The comparison with food courts is not exactly a correct one because there is a difference with hawker centres where we want to preserve the UNESCO heritage. In a hawker centre, the stallholders themselves operate the stalls. That is one of the requirements that they cannot outsource to someone else to manage the stalls. They have to tend to the stalls themselves so that they are the ones who ply the trade. But once we change the model to one in which the stall owners can now hire a certain complement of foreign workers or even local workers for that matter to run the stall instead of themselves, you are then turning it into potentially a franchise model where now the actual operator is not the one cooking. It is someone else doing the cooking and this person becomes a business owner hiring different workers, local or otherwise, to work across different stalls rather than he himself running the stall with his own special touch, special recipe.

So, there is an inherent change in the nature of how hawker centres will become. I think that is something where we are still trying to make sure we hold fast to the original concept of what a hawker stall and a hawker centre is. But in time to come, when demographics change, there may well be a need for us to make further moves. But let us see what the current measures help the hawkers first.

On PQM, in my speech, I did say that today, in some of our SEHCs already practise PQM. So, it is not something that we are averse to; it is something that we already tried in our SEHCs. But it is easier to be done when there is actually an operator who has a business concept behind it, who has a certain idea how that particular centre is to be run in terms of placemaking and programming, so that, with a price quality matrix, he selects a certain complementary type of stalls to operate in there with a certain business model in mind. Whereas in the typical NEA-managed hawker centre, which is running through a bidding system, it really is more of a kind of mix that is determined by what the market wants, rather than a placemaker per se trying to curate and decide which stall can run in a hawker centre. I hope you understand what I am trying to get at with the different models between what the SEHC is and what a typical NEA-managed hawker centre is like.

The third point is about awarding the highest bidder but making him pay the second highest bid. I think that will make the second highest bidder a bit aggrieved, would it not? If you are going to award the second highest bid, then why did I not get it, but you give it to the highest bidder? Because I think to be fair and transparent, the highest bidder actually should be the one to be given the stall. But as I said, if the concern is about outlier bids, today, the outlier bids are a rare occurrence. They are not the norm. In fact, the one that got everybody's attention is actually the only one in the last five years.

Like I said, the vast majority of bids – 44% of them – got the bids below the Assessed Market Rent, which means close to half of the stalls actually pay in the first tenancy term less than the Assessed Market Rent. And the number of bids that are in that stratospheric range is actually a very small number. I hope we would not discard a system that has worked well and benefited a large number of hawkers just because of one outlier bid.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

9.45 pm

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think anyone in the Chamber would tolerate me for another 40-minute speech. Sir, as a result, I frantically summarised what I wanted to say, while Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon was speaking. But I must also admit that I have never felt that I had that much power over this Chamber before.

I think my speech will be about 15 minutes, a summary in English, and then a summary in Chinese.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank first of all, all the officeholders and Members who participated in this debate. I also thank the Workers' Party for supporting most of the points that PSP has raised. I am glad that based on the amended Motion put forward by Mr Edward Chia, all of us have agreed on the importance of safeguarding our hawker culture, which is an important national institution and cultural inheritance, and the need to provide help to our hawkers to continue to provide good and affordable food and earn a fair livelihood at the same time.

I thank Senior Minister of State Koh for the very comprehensive explanation of the Government policies – I indeed learned a lot from it. However, I think to summarise my concerns, there are these following issues which I think if the Government does not tackle further, the prospects and livelihoods of our hawkers will not improve that much and will threaten the sustainability of our hawker culture on the long term. So, I hope the Government will continue to consider these four points that I raised.

Firstly, about the social enterprise model, I think so far, we are still not sure what is the actual contribution made by the social enterprise model, vis a vis the problems that the model has brought about. In PSP's view, we think that the corporatised culture of a social enterprise model is actually not compatible with the free sole proprietor spirit of individual hawkers.

And if you take into consideration the possibility of conflict of interest between the private operator and he operating a social enterprise hawker centre, we are of the view that it may be better off for experienced civil servants of the Hawker Centres Group to actually provide more help to the management of the hawker centres. That is one of our points and that is why we say, bring the whole thing up as the new Government agency, Hawker Singapore.

The second point, while we appreciate the advantages that Senior Minister of State Koh has shared with us about the tender system, there is still an unanswered question as to why is there a need for the system to also cater for a renewal system that is so peculiar, specifically, a high tender bid will be reduced to a lower Assessed Market Rent after the initial three years. Is it not better off to have a system whereby the bidder continues to pay as he bid? Or after three years, a new bidding again for the same stall.

So, we still think that this kind of tender system did contribute to the escalating prices in our HDB coffee shops and food courts. And that is one of the major causes of escalating cooked food prices in the long run.

The third point, we also disagree that while you allow the coffee shops and the food courts to employ Work Permit holders, you do not allow the individual hawkers to do so. In doing so, you are putting them at a disadvantage. And in order for us to preserve the distinctive Singaporean character of our hawker culture, we must ensure the individual hawkers are competitive vis a vis the corporatised hawkers. If you disallow that to the individual hawkers, then you continue to make them the underdogs.

And my last point, you may have a lot of competing objectives, but to impose budget meals and discounts to hawker meals, imposing the cost on the hawkers is an objective that you can do without.

Those are the main points that I would like to say.

Sir, in closing, two months ago, we debated a Bill for an important group of essential workers that deserve our attention – the platform workers. I regard our local hawkers as another group of workers essential to the functioning of our society that really need our attention. Exemplified by many of my Chinatown neighbours in the past, our Pioneer hawkers started off as humble folks who just want to earn enough to feed their families. They worked very hard but are satisfied with getting meagre profits. As a result, we were able to enjoy cheap and good hawker food for a long time.

Today, in the 21st century, hawkers are facing tremendous headwinds, with high rental, shortage of manpower, unfair competition and increasing constraints from corporatisation, and also the persistent societal expectations to provide cheap and good food. This situation is not sustainable. At the rate we are going, our traditional hawker culture which is based on the hard work and enterprise of individual hawkers will slowly wither away.

Corporatisation of the hawker trade is a natural development of the market economy, but we can ensure a more level playing field for our individual hawkers to thrive and flourish. The current pride of our hawkers is at least partly due to the policies by the Government. The onus is now on the Government to consider our suggestions to provide better support for hawkers in the future. Sir, Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, PSP has put forward a Motion to protect our hawker culture, calling on the Government to review policies related to hawkers and hawker centre management, and to provide better support for hawkers to maintain and develop Singapore's hawker culture.

The hawker culture is not only a part of Singaporean identity but also a UNESCO intangible cultural heritage. Hawker centres, as "people's kitchens", provide Singaporeans with delicious and affordable food, offering a buffer against high living costs.

At the same time, the hawker industry provides an ideal entrepreneurial platform for young, aspiring business owners. Promoting hawker food domestically and internationally, winning over hearts and palates worldwide, is a way for Singapore to enhance its soft power, which will bring significant economic benefits. Therefore, PSP believes that protecting and preserving hawker culture is crucial.

However, the challenges faced by hawkers are threatening the survival of this unique culture. Thus, PSP calls on the Government to re-examine its policies.

In today's Motion, PSP has put forward six policy recommendations, which my colleague Hazel Poa has also introduced in Chinese in her speech. PSP believes these six policy changes will revitalise our hawker culture, making Singapore's hawker food shine brighter on the international stage while ensuring hawker centres continue to provide affordable food for Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, two months ago, we debated the Bill for platform workers, an important group of workers worthy of attention. Our local hawkers are another crucial group maintaining societal operations, equally deserving of our attention.

Singapore's Pioneer hawkers have provided us with good quality, affordable food through hard work and low profits. But under current pressures of high rentals, manpower shortages and competition from corporatised hawkers, individual hawkers face enormous challenges. At the current rate, traditional hawker culture based on individual hawkers' diligence and entrepreneurial spirit will gradually decline.

In today's debate, PSP has put forward some policy recommendations, hoping to spark more public discussion and help create more space to maintain and develop our hawker culture. We hope the Government will consider our suggestions and let Singaporeans judge which policy proposals are more beneficial for Singapore in the long run.

I hope everyone in Parliament agrees that hawker centres and hawkers must thrive so that we can continue to enjoy delicious and affordable hawker food, and maintain and develop our country's unique hawker culture.

(In English): Sir, having made my points clear, the PSP is ready to support the amended Motion, which is not too different from the original Motion tabled by me. This is to show that this House is united in our support for hawkers. Sir, I beg to move, as quickly as possible, please. [Laughter.]

9.58 pm

Mr Speaker: After five-and-a-half hours of debate, any clarifications for Mr Leong?

I am glad to say that we have now come to the conclusion of the debate. I shall put the questions on the amendments to the House for decision.

We have three amendments proposed by Member Mr Edward Chia. We will deal with the amendments first.

Amendment No 1, in line 1, to delete "review" and insert "continue its support for hawkers by regularly reviewing".

Question, "That Amendment No 1 be made", agreed to.

Mr Speaker: I did not hear any Noes, but is there anyone who wants to record their dissent? No? Good.

Amendment No 2, in line 2, to delete the words "to provide better support for hawkers" and insert ", which will help".

Question, "That Amendment No 2 be made", agreed to.

Mr Speaker: Amendment No 3, at the end of line 3, to add "while enabling hawkers to earn a fair livelihood".

Question, "That Amendment No 3 be made", agreed to.

Mr Speaker: The amendments have all been agreed to. The original Motion as amended is now before the House.

Original Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House calls on the Government to continue its support for hawkers by regularly reviewing its policies relating to hawkers and the management of hawker centres, which will help to sustain and grow Singapore’s hawker culture so that Singaporeans can continue to enjoy good and affordable hawker food while enabling hawkers to earn a fair livelihood.