Ms Goh Han Yan Again, this time in Parliament
Previously it was a casual session, a podcast. Now, let’s get official. WP MP He Ting Ru (Sengkang GRC) had asked whether the National Environment Agency (NEA) permitted hawker centre operators to contractually oblige hawkers to provide free meals, and for guidance on the appropriateness of such practices in future contracts.
Ms Goh said Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre was the only socially conscious enterprise hawker centre (SEHC) with the requirement to provide free meals, and the condition was made known upfront to stallholders.
Describing the scheme as well-intentioned with the purpose of providing an inclusive community dining option, Ms Goh pointed out that the requirement of providing a “value meal” upfront to stallholders during the signing of tenancy agreements. Stallholders who decided to proceed with renting stalls at the centre would have factored the costs into their business considerations.
I know I’m not qualified to teach, but how many marks would you who are teachers give for Ms Goh Han Han’s answer? I would certainly not give her a passing mark. The question was: did NEA approve of the practice of mandating that hawkers provide free meals at a SEHC? Ms He didn’t ask whether there are another other SEHCs with the same practice. She didn’t suggest that hawkers have been coerced into signing the contract. She simply asked if NEA approved of Canopy Hawkers Group’s requirement for hawkers to provide free meals.
Sure, the hawkers didn’t have a knife placed to their throats when they signed the contracts and they certainly should be held responsible for what they signed. If they sign, they get the stall. If they don’t sign, they don’t get. If they don’t make it, it’s their own problem. That’s fair enough, but that’s not the toxic part.
Mr Foo Cexiang (Tanjong Pagar GRC), Mr Louis Chua (Sengkang GRC), Mr Gerald Giam (Aljunied GRC), Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik (Sengkang GRC) and Mr Ng Shi Xuan (Sembawang GRC) had also asked about the Government’s plans for SEHCs, introduced in 2011, and whether it will review the current approach. Implicit in these questions is the perception that something is wrong. What’s Ms Goh Han Yan’s reply?
Ms Goh said operators of such hawker centres (meaning Canopy Hawkers Group for instance) are required to implement ways to keep food affordable as part of tender requirements. To date, SEHC operators have done so by making at least one “value meal” available at each stall, with stallholders given the flexibility to propose these food items, she added.
So SEHC operators are required to find their own ways to make food affordable. The operator is given flexibility to exercise their imagination but there is no mention of which party should finance socially conscious causes. Well, it certainly didn’t take too much imagination for the operator in this case. The operator has taken the liberty to pay the buck to the hawkers.
The next question came from Mr Louis Chua who asked if NEA would set guidelines for affordable and free meals rather than have these conditions baked into contractual agreements. Deflecting the question again, Ms Goh said that hawkers are not expected to make a business loss from affordable meals. Value meals account for 5 to 20% of the number of meals a hawker sells. A question was asked about NEA but there’s no mention of NEA in the answer until she pointed out that operators are required to conduct quarterly feedback sessions with their stallholders attended by NEA representatives and hawkers can raise concerns or ideas to improve the operations of the hawker centres. Ms Goh gave an example of how an operator acted on high gas prices after hawkers gave feedback on it. But then, as someone pointed out, why did the operator, who is well-versed in the industry, not able to offer better gas prices in the first place?
I need to disclose that I’m not a big fan of hawker food and I seldom eat out. I’m definitely not as qualified to comment on this topic as Makansutra’s Seetoh. But I can imagine myself in the shoes of the hawkers. Ms Goh Han Yan herself has said in the podcast that she won’t sugar-coat the trade. But does she realise that it’s not always that way?
F&B used to be the lifesaver. A friend of mine whose retail business went bust set up his own stall in a food court (before the big boys came in) and repaid his debts in 2 years. The only downside was, the hours were crazy. That was almost 30 years ago. Nowadays, it’s just as easy to go bust with F&B even if you work yourself silly. In today’s context, one would be better off a condemned encik than running a F&B business.
The hawkers signed their contracts willingly. They miscalculated. Somebody has moved their cheese.