Nurturing a Thriving, Innovative and Sustainable Hawker Industry as a Cornerstone of Singaporean Culture

Mr Deputy Speaker, the deep reservoir of affection and respect that Singaporeans feel for our hawkers has been clearly demonstrated time and time again. In 2018, there was an outpouring of public concern over news of steep charges faced by hawkers in social enterprise hawker centres or SEHCs. In 2020 and 2021, there has huge public sympathy and concern for our hawkers due to dining-in restrictions; and concern over the news that some stalls had their rents raised.

And this affection that Singaporeans have for our hawkers recognises a deep reality. Most hawkers see what they do as a calling, a calling to provide good quality, cooked food that is affordable and which deliciously combines the very best elements of Singaporean heritage and innovation.

Sir, hawkers work hard. Really hard. For those who want to catch the breakfast crowd, they may need to come to work at 3.00 am. They spend hours chopping, slicing, parsing, peeling, boiling and marinating food ingredients before any customer shows up. And they may return home at 4.00 pm. And they work often in non-air-conditioned environments, standing up much of the time. No wonder that attracting new entrants into the industry is an uphill climb.

I recall one story told to me by a hawker industry veteran in preparing this Adjournment Motion. When he asked an elderly hawker why he did not raise his prices when selling to delivery apps so as to offset the app commission, the hawker said, "哪里可以", meaning, "I simply cannot bring myself to do that."

Most hawkers feel a deep bond with their customers and we, to them.

Our hawker culture is a heritage stretching back to the mid-1800s when street cooked food first emerged, and to 1923 when the first hawker centre at People's Park Centre was built to widespread acclaim. A milestone in that history, of course, was 16 December 2020 when Singapore's hawker culture was awarded a place in UNESCO's representative list for humanity's intangible cultural heritage.

Sir, Workers' Party Members of this House and Members from the People's Action Party have often spoken about hawker issues. In researching this Motion, I came across a speech made by a then young and new Member of Parliament, one Mr Low Thia Khiang, in 1995 asking MTI whether it foresaw the need to study the impact on hawker costs and food prices after the sale of coffee shops and market stalls in HDB estates.

Sir, in this Motion, I hope to offer ideas to enhance this precious hawker industry. My speech will have three sections, three Ps, centred on the need to Protect, Professionalise and Promote the hawker industry, adapted from one of the mottos once used for the World Street Food Congress.

All of these ideas are centred on one simple assumption: that the hawker industry should not be regulated in the same way as other industries. As a nationally important industry and one that embodies so much of our precious national heritage, the Government and all stakeholders bear a special responsibility to go the extra mile to ensure a thriving hawker industry that retains incumbents and attracts newcomers that innovates and that continues to provide affordable food.

Above all, we have a responsibility to listen to the practitioners of the hawker craft in formulating and refining our public policies.

First of all, Sir, on the theme of "protect".

To retain incumbents and attract newcomers, we have to create an ecosystem that allows our hawkers to make a decent living. The policy ecosystem has to instil confidence among hawkers that there is a longer-term commitment from the Government to ensuring stable pro-hawker policies. Policies that seemed to go against this commitment, like raising rents, even if only for a small number of stalls, during a pandemic, have an outsized demonstration effect and do nothing to instil confidence.

The first subject I would like to address is rents.

Of the 20,000 or so hawker stalls in Singapore, around 6,000 are in NEA hawker centres (NEA HCs), several hundred are in social enterprise hawker centres (SEHCs) and the rest are in privately-run coffee shops and food courts.

In its 2020 manifesto, the Workers' Party 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.

Social enterprises are not governmental entities and, hence, are not accountable to the public in the same way that the Government, in theory, in any case, is. Be that as it may, I will discuss what we can do in policy terms for NEA HCs, SEHCs and privately-run HCs together.

Rents are currently negotiated in SEHCs, with an average rental per stall of around $2,000 per month, as revealed in the reply to a Parliamentary Question by my Parliamentary colleague Mr Muhamad Faisal Manap. For NEA hawker centres, non-subsidised rents range from $640 to $3,900.

Currently, apart from a small number of mostly older stalls in NEA HCs who are on subsidised rents, NEA hawkers tender for the rent for an initial period and then the rent is adjusted up or down depending on a professional valuation that considers footfall, location and market conditions, as Senior Minister of State Amy Khor explained in detail very recently in this House.

In setting rents in the public hawker centres, I would like to argue for two principles.

Firstly, we should err on the side of being too low rather than being too high. For Government-controlled properties, we should never fear that some hawkers may "make too much money". Top performers making a very decent living is a factor that attracts people into a profession. And it is hard enough – yet vitally important – to attract young Singaporeans to the hawker trade.

In any case, the top hawkers would have put in hard work and talent to get to where they are. This is not an industry where luck plays an outsized role.

Secondly, I want to address the argument that rents are a relatively small component of total costs. That is true, but the Government should use whatever levers of control it has to improve the economic situation of our hawkers and the levers are stronger for rents. Even a small difference is still a difference.

Next and more specifically, we should move away from the principle of tendering for stalls in NEA HCs. While it is said that tendering can result in extremely low rents, it does create uncertainty and can be a barrier to entry.

Very low rents that may occasionally emerge from tendering also subject the hawker to a shock when the rents get raised based on the formula explained above. If the tendering leads to high rents – well, that favours entrants into the industry with cash rather than those with great culinary skills who may have less cash.

I would like to argue for rents being recalibrated and set at lower levels than currently for NEA and SEHCs, namely at levels close to the lowest end of what we see now at NEA HCs and SEHCs, and with reasonable variations based on location, footfall and food type, with the Government using its control over SEHC leases to bring SEHC rents down over time.

Sir, economic theory suggests that lowering prices below a so-called market clearing level tends to induce excess demand, meaning there would be too many hawkers bidding for the same stall.

I would argue here that the solution need not be tendering, which favours those with more cash, nor does it have to be random balloting, the mechanism used to allocate Build-To-Order (BTO) flats and some types of subsidised hawker stalls.

Rather, given the national significance of the hawker industry, allocation of stalls where there are too many bidders can be decided by tasting committees. Such committees can bring together hawker industry veterans, enthusiasts, food critics and ordinary citizens to do blind taste tests, to decide who has the best culinary skills. The independence of these tasting committees could be assured by being organised under the aegis of a hawker academy, a subject to which I will turn later.

Next, I want to address the plight of hawkers who operate outside of the NEA HCs and SEHCs in privately-run food courts and coffee shops.

In my Serangoon ward of Aljunied GRC, there are many hawkers in such coffee shops, many of whom are truly excellent, to the delight of constituents and their Member of Parliament.

Hawkers in such private facilities make up the bulk of hawkers. Yet there is a perception that they do not benefit to the same extent as hawkers in NEA HCs and SEHCs from Government schemes, such as NEA rental waivers. Moreover, the Government has far less influence over the rents that they have to bear.

I hope the Government can study the plight of these so-called private hawkers in more detail, understanding their rents, margins and overall economic situation, and devise tools to nudge private operators towards cheaper rents for their tenants.

Next, Sir, on COVID-19 schemes. Ground feedback suggests that hawkers find the latest COVID-19 schemes, such as the COVID-19 Recovery Grant (CRG) and COVID-19 Recovery Grant – Temporary (CRG-T), confusing and not as effective as the earlier schemes such as the Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme (SIRS). This should be looked into.

Specifically, I would also like to ask if the Government would consider providing the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) to hawkers.

Hawkers are directly affected by dining-in restrictions. Most hawkers are micro-businesses surviving on thin profits and JSS support would mean a lot to them.

Not all use and make money from delivery apps, one reason being the reluctance of some hawkers to raise prices to cover the app commissions, as I alluded to earlier. Apps are not a panacea for the hawker industry amidst COVID-19. Also, some stalls find that they have a less compelling value proposition on apps – like drinks and dessert stalls, who depend more on dining-in. Hence, there is a case for JSS for hawkers to cover periods of dining-in restrictions.

Next, many SEHCs ensure that several stalls provide low-cost food. Anecdotally, it would appear that some of these low-priced food stalls struggle with the customer perception that the food is not that attractive.

Rather than requiring some stalls to keep prices low, which may result in lower quality, can we not consider instead providing discount cards to low-income Singaporeans – those living in rental flats, those on ComCare, Public Assistance and other similar schemes – so that they can obtain discounts at SEHC stalls instead? I believe there is such a scheme now in place, which is a special grant card for those on Public Assistance only, which can be used at certain hawker stalls, but the reach appears to be very limited.

This tool of discount cards can be expanded and made into a general policy tool to keep hawker food affordable to those on lower incomes. Such discount cards may be a way in which hawker food can be priced at a level which is fair and economically sustainable for hawkers, while still keeping hawker food affordable for the poor.

Next, Sir, I would like to move to the second part of my speech, which is on professionalising the hawker industry. In framing the matter this way, I do not mean to suggest that hawkers today are not professionals, nor are they or should they be professional employees.

In truth, hawkers are entrepreneurs. So, by professionalising, I mean raising the status and standing of the hawker vocation, which also hinges on maintaining and raising business and culinary effectiveness.

My first suggestion here would be to create a permanent pool of Hawker Ambassadors.

Right now, Digital Ambassadors (DAs) under IMDA's Singapore Digital Office are deployed to hawker centres and they focus on getting hawkers to get onto digital apps and e-payments. Anecdotal feedback suggests that the engagement of DAs with hawkers is not always very deep and is sometimes hindered by language barriers.

My suggestion here is to deploy a staff of permanent Hawker Ambassadors under NEA or, perhaps, MCCY, given the heritage angle, to be deployed to all hawker centres, be they NEA HCs, SEHCs or private hawker centres (HCs). The staffing ratio can be determined and it could be that some ambassadors cover multiple HCs, food courts and coffee shops.

The goal of the ambassadors would be three-fold: firstly, to support hawkers in navigating the evolving digital business ecosystem; secondly, to support them in navigating the plethora of Government schemes; and, thirdly, to help hawkers market themselves online and offline. Help should be focused on those hawkers who need it the most.

On the digital front, ambassadors can work with older and less tech-savvy hawkers to help them adopt innovations, such as voice-activated systems to fulfil digital orders and to consider getting onto apps that do not charge such high commissions.

Hawkers I spoke to have shared that there are too many distinct Government schemes. This is confusing, especially to hawkers who are less literate in the English language. Ambassadors could help them identify and apply for relevant schemes.

Ambassadors should also help our hawkers tell their stories and weave narratives about their history online and via events and promotions, to make their products more appealing to customers, as some larger and more organised local eateries already do. They could also help hawkers to connect with shared service providers who offer services such as food ingredient preparation, for example, which may be advantageous business-wise.

One major obstacle is the mistrust that many, especially older hawkers, have towards outsiders coming along and telling them what to do. Permanent ambassadors who can speak vernacular languages and dialects would fill this gap by building relationships with hawkers and winning their trust over time.

The cost of employing such ambassadors would not be huge – in the context of the national significance of the hawker industry. Ambassador jobs could also be outsourced by the Government to NGOs, social enterprises or community groups with an interest in the well-being of hawkers, of which there are a number now, such as, for example, Hawkers United and Hawker Cart. Over time, as a more digitally savvy generation of hawkers takes over, permanent ambassadors could be phased out if there is no need for them.

I would also like to call for the Competition and Consumer Commission to take pains to act as a good watchdog over the delivery app industry, to ensure fair competition between the big app companies and smaller ones that charge low or no commissions.

My second suggestion here, Sir, is the creation of a national hawker academy that could be linked to an existing think tank or university for infrastructural synergies.

Right now, there is a hawker course run at Temasek Polytechnic and a course at ITE. These could be consolidated under a single hawker academy, which could become a focal point for the hawker vocation.

An independent hawker academy could be a one-stop shop for training of various kinds – culinary and business. It could be a think tank that supports research into hawker-related policies and issues. It could support the efforts of hawkers to innovate and create new dishes or business models. It could also, being seen to be independent, be tasked to convene and supervise the tasting committees to allocate stalls when there are excess bidders.

Such an academy could even aspire to play a leading role in organising events and research for the global street food industry, which could yield soft power and economic benefits to Singapore.

Lastly, Sir, I will move on to the third and last section of my speech on the need to "promote". We should do more to support and nurture the best-performing and most innovative hawkers to go global.

Some hawkers are more successful and ambitious, operating multiple stalls across the island. It would be a huge boost for our hawker culture and for Singapore's soft power if these hawkers set up successful eateries abroad. This would raise awareness of and esteem for Singaporean culture abroad, which can only be a good thing. Some of these more ambitious hawkers could also obtain economic benefits from overseas operations, resulting in multiplier benefits back to the Singapore economy.

Why is Singapore food not as widely enjoyed around the world as, say, Japanese or Thai food? Not for any reasons to do with quality, I am sure. In fact, I understand that the late global celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain wanted to bring some Singaporean hawkers and other hawkers from around the world to New York for a global event on street food. And I am told that he felt that the Singaporean hawkers were among the very best practitioners of street food in the world.

There could be other underlying issues about going global, like the supply chain for local ingredients that are hard to obtain abroad. I suggest that economic agencies like Enterprise Singapore make it a priority to identify the more promising organised hawkers and support their move abroad aggressively, helping them to troubleshoot whatever impediments exist.

With the proper support system and with the support of the over 200,000 Singaporeans living abroad, I do not see why we cannot have prata in Paris, lontong in London, bak kut teh in Belgrade or rojak in Rio De Janeiro.

Sir, my next suggestion would be for the Government to make an effort to document traditional recipes that are held in the memory of older Singaporeans. This may come under the purview of NHB and MCCY.

There are dishes that have been created and enjoyed in Singapore that are a part of our Singaporean heritage but are in danger of being forgotten. NHB could work on creating oral histories that document and save these recipes – the recipes for these endangered dishes as it were – and make such recipes publicly available, like open-sourced software, to be used and enjoyed by chefs at home or, who knows, maybe taken up by a hawker one day.

This is currently being done to some extent under the Singapore Memories Project (SMP) and other NHB initiatives, but this needs to be scaled up and more of the recipes thus discovered should be made publicly available, with the consent of the person providing it, of course.

Lastly, Sir, I would like to propose that we designate 16 December, the day we obtained UNESCO recognition for our unique world-class hawker culture, as Singapore's Hawker Day. All of us could make the effort to remind one another on this day to partake of hawker food, especially with younger family members and friends, to help keep this love of hawker culture alive.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, our hawker food is a national institution that is much loved by all Singaporeans. It arose organically in the 1800s as micro-entrepreneurs saw a market need and filled it, as entrepreneurs should. It is a deep part of Singapore's heritage and now the world's as well.

In moving this Motion, it is not my intention to say that we have not made progress over the decades in nurturing this industry. We have. It is to point out gaps and offer suggestions for how we can do right by this nationally important industry and the hawkers whom we all care about, who work so hard to bring us incredible, delicious food at affordable prices day after day. [Applause.]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for his Motion of Adjournment, and the many Members of Parliament like Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Ms Joan Pereira, who have filed Parliamentary Questions and spoken in support of our hawkers.

Indeed, our hawker trade is a key part of Singapore's history and identity, very much loved and treasured by Singaporeans. The inscription of our hawker culture by UNESCO is a proud achievement for all hawkers and Singaporeans.

To ensure that the hawker trade and culture continue to thrive for future generations, we have been working closely with hawkers and stakeholders to, as Mr Leon Perera said, professionalise the trade, improve working conditions and keep barriers to entry low. Our policies ensure that rentals remain affordable. We work closely with the hawker community to support new hawkers and encourage existing hawkers to adapt to changes, as we future-proof our hawkers and hawker trade, that is, to protect and to promote them.

To support our hawkers in weathering COVID-19, we have provided eight months' rental waiver and six months' subsidies for table-cleaning and centralised dishwashing fees since April 2020. Eligible hawkers also received $9,000 under the Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme (SIRS) in 2020.

Given the disproportionate impact of recent COVID-19 clusters on some markets and hawker centres, we will provide stallholders in centres managed by NEA or NEA-appointed operators one-off $500 support under the Market and Hawker Centre Relief Fund in early August. Those who continue to face financial difficulties can reach out to NEA and we will review the case and provide assistance on a case-by-case basis.

Stallholders in other F&B establishments, coffee shops and food courts have also been supported during this pandemic. Stallholders that contribute CPF for their employees from October 2019 would have received 17 months of wage support under the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS). During this recent Phase Two (Heightened Alert), eligible stallholders in Government-owned commercial properties will receive one-month rental relief and those in privately-owned commercial properties will receive two weeks' rental relief.

To help F&B operators, Enterprise Singapore has reintroduced the Food Delivery Booster Package for the Phase Two (Heightened Alert) period. Eligible stallholders can also apply for financial support under the COVID-19 Recovery Grant (CRG).

The Government is committed to supporting our hawkers as well as stallholders in other F&B establishments. We will continue to monitor the situation and assess the need for further assistance.

As Mr Perera is well aware, food courts and coffeeshops are operated commercially by private operators. Stallholders and the F&B operators enter willingly into commercial arrangements after assessing the business potential. Regardless, anyone aspiring to become hawkerpreneurs always has the option of securing a stall in NEA centres which are open to all Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents. As Mr Perera has acknowledged, rentals are more affordable at NEA centres, where median monthly rental of non-subsidised hawker stalls is $1,250. This is because of policies such as doing away with the minimum bid price through tender, which is the most transparent manner of allocation of such stalls, to allow hawker centres to serve as our community dining rooms while ensuring that hawkers can earn a decent livelihood, even as they provide affordable food for Singaporeans.

Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres, or SEHC operators, will ensure, not just a few, but each of every stall in the centres sells at least one item priced $3 and below. This provides affordable options while allowing hawkers to provide diverse food offerings and sell additional items with higher profit margin.

The SEHC model is working well and has benefited hawkers and patrons. Average occupancy rates at SEHCs remained high at 98% in June 2021, with very little turnover. Operating costs, including rentals, are on par with comparable existing centres. During this pandemic, operators have demonstrated their useful role by helping their hawkers adopt online food delivery and curating activities to attract footfall.

Beyond COVID-19, we must ensure our hawker culture and food continue to thrive for future generations.

We have been working closely with hawkers and stakeholders to sustain the hawker trade. Building on veteran hawkers' advice – so we talk to the hawkers constantly – we have taken steps to provide new hawkers with necessary skillsets to boost their chances of succeeding. For example, we started the Hawkers' Development Programme (HDP) last year and 376 participants have completed their classroom training; 96 are currently being mentored by experienced hawker mentors under the HDP's apprenticeship stage.

Aspiring hawkers can also participate in NEA's Incubation Stall Programme (ISP), which provides up to 15 months' rental subsidies and fitted-out stalls to lower start-up costs. SEHC operators have also developed similar programmes. To date, 92 aspiring hawkers have participated in these programmes, with 38 becoming full-fledged hawkers. The median age of these hawkerpreneurs is 36.

To help sustain the hawker trade and heritage, we are piloting the Hawkers Succession Scheme (HSS) to help retiring veteran hawkers pass down culinary skills, recipes as well as stalls to aspiring successors through an apprenticeship and mentorship programme.

I am happy to see many younger hawkerpreneurs contributing to our hawker culture through both traditional and modern hawker fare.

COVID-19 has presented learning points on future-proofing our hawker centres and hawker trade. To make hawker centres cleaner, safer and more productive, we introduced the Hawker Centres Transformation Programme (HTP), which will include improvements such as better aisles and tables spacing to minimise crowding, and high-volume-low-speed fans to improve ventilation.

We also encourage hawker centres to get onto the Productive Hawker Centres (PHC) programme and adopt automated tray return systems and centralised dishwashing.

To help hawkers enhance business resiliency, the Hawkers' Productivity Grant (HPG) co-funds the purchase of equipment to streamline business processes.

The pandemic has brought to the fore online food delivery for hawker food. While this is no silver bullet, it is one way to help hawkers boost their revenue. To help defray costs of onboarding food delivery platforms, NEA provided hawkers with a one-time $500 support last year under the Food Delivery Support Scheme.

There is, however, no easy or one-size-fits-all solution. Hawkers have different needs and preferences, and not all hawker food is suitable for food delivery. Beyond the larger delivery platforms, there are various others that hawkers can work with, such as WhyQ and Bungkus, and each adopts a different business model. Some provide onsite support to manage online orders and some have different fee structures. Some charge hawkers little or no commission, with costs borne by consumers. Each model has its benefits and targets different segments of hawkers and consumers.

Hawker representatives, online food delivery platforms and the community groups have come together with NEA and IMDA to convene an Alliance for Action (AfA) on online ordering for hawker food. This aims to address challenges hawkers face in using delivery services.

The AfA will look at raising hawkers' awareness and understanding of different platforms, facilitate their onboarding and equip them with means to successfully market their food online. It will also explore more sustainable platform costs for both hawkers and patrons by exploring different business models.

Meanwhile, our Digital Ambassadors from SG Digital Office will continue to support hawkers by helping them get onboard e-payment and online delivery platforms. Hawkers can also approach NEA for help, as suggested by Mr Perera. We have made good progress, with about half of cooked-food stallholders in our hawker centres having adopted some form of food delivery and almost 70% of them on e-payment. We aim to develop an ecosystem of support, where all hawkers – tech-savvy or otherwise – can join if they wish.

We can all do our part to keep hawker centres vibrant and safe by patronising our hawker stalls online or offline, and adhering to Safe Management Measures, as well as, of course, clearing our trays and dirty crockeries and litter up when dine-in resumes.

In this regard, let me assure you that you can visit the hawker centres which are open, with peace of mind, as MOH has completed a one-time pre-emptive swab for all working in our hawker centres and placed them on Rostered Routine Testing (RRT). Deep-cleaning and disinfection of affected centres have been carried out, and we have also implemented access control.

The Government will continue to work with stakeholders but, ultimately, it is up to all Singaporeans to support our hawkers to ensure that our hawker trade and culture continue to thrive.

*Question put, and agreed to.*

*Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn."*

Adjourned accordingly at 8.45 pm.