Different Models for Hawker Centre Management

Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what are the different types of new hawker centre models available today; (b) of all the current hawker centres, how many of them are under these new models of management; and (c) whether there is a timeline for measuring the effectiveness of each model when the new hawker centre models are being tested.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what is the total number of vacant stalls at NEA-run hawker centres and markets as at 30 September 2018; and (b) what has been the take-up rate of vacant stalls since NEA removed the floor price.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) how many hawkers have taken part in the Incubation Stall Programme; (b) how many will be continuing beyond the incubation period; and (c) for those who will not continue, what are the reasons and how will the Ministry address them.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what challenges do hawkers face under the social enterprise hawker centres initiative; (b) what kind of pricing model should hawkers and patrons expect under this initiative; and (c) how is the Ministry addressing the unhappiness resulting from this initiative.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether the total cost of running a hawker stall under the new social enterprise-run hawker centres model has been significantly higher than that of the NEA-run model; (b) whether the new model has helped serve the policy intent of providing affordable food and sustaining hawker culinary skills and trade; and (c) whether the contractual terms and requirements imposed by the operators of the new model on the hawkers are reasonable and fair.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether the Ministry can stop further outsourcing of hawker centres to private operators; (b) whether the Ministry conducts an oversight of the contract terms between the management and tenants of outsourced hawker centres; and (c) what is the Ministry doing to resolve the many issues arising from its decision to outsource hawker centres.

Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what are the key success factors that can be attributed to NEA-managed hawker centres in bringing affordable and good food to the public; and (b) what are the challenges in replicating the successful NEA-managed hawker centres to new hawker centres operated by social enterprises.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what are the cost components of running the existing hawker centres and markets; (b) whether there is a subsidy or grant given to each hawker or market stall and, if so, what is the subsidy; and (c) whether the same subsidy or grant is extended to social enterprise operators.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what has been the success rate of tray returns since the programme was launched; and (b) whether there is a need to redesign the tray return collection points through enhancement of the washing area for patrons to return direct to the washing area-cum-collection point for better efficiency and reduce bird-related hygiene issues.

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) how many hawker stalls are paying a rental of $10,000 or more per month; (b) what is the current highest rental that a hawker stall is paying; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider implementing a cap on the rental to better manage food prices.

Mr Ong Teng Koon asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether hawker centre stall rental rates can be delinked from private market rental rates, including privately-owned HDB coffee shops, and free market bidding rates.

Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what measures are in place for the Ministry to take action against private operators of hawker centres who do not abide by the terms of the operating contract; and (b) what action can be taken against private operators of hawker centres whose actions or lack thereof lead to reputational damage for the Ministry, other Government agencies, hawkers and other community stakeholders.

Prof Lim Sun Sun asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether the Ministry has considered working with NHB's Our Hawker Culture travelling exhibition to better grasp public opinion and tap new ideas on what Singaporeans expect of our hawker centres beyond providing affordable food.

Prof Lim Sun Sun asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources where food supply is required at complexes that are open 24 hours, whether the Ministry has considered more strategic use of vending machines that provide hot food in place of mandating that hawker stalls remain open.

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether rent and all ancillary charges payable by hawkers in hawker centres operated by not-for-profit social enterprises, such as dishwashing charges, are lower than those in NEA-managed hawker centres; and (b) if not, whether the Government intends to take any corrective action to reduce any additional business costs for the hawkers accordingly.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what is the relative cost structure of hawker stalls under NEA management, social enterprise management, and for-profit coffee shops respectively; (b) what are the nature and extent of implicit subsidies provided in NEA-managed hawker centres; and (c) whether the Ministry has plans for subsidising the operating costs of hawkers when hawkers experience difficulties in providing affordable food while earning a reasonable income.

Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) how does NEA intend to help mitigate the cost increase in rental for the social enterprise-run hawker centres over time; and (b) whether NEA has any plans to run the hawker centres currently operated by social enterprises.

Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) how long will NEA take to complete the stock-take of the social enterprise model of hawker centres; (b) whether the findings will be published for public consultation; and (c) whether the ongoing debate on social enterprise-run hawker centres will affect Singapore's bid for hawker culture to be listed under the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

Thank you. I thank the 13 Members for raising many thoughtful questions on the socially-conscious enterprise hawker centres (SEHCs). I will speak on why we embarked on the Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centre (SEHC) model, how we select operators, and share our views on how the SEHCs are performing. Senior Minister of State Amy Khor will elaborate further on our efforts to refine the SEHC model and better support our hawkers.

Hawker centres are an integral part of Singapore. They are our community dining rooms – well-loved by Singaporeans from all walks of life. They serve three key social objectives by providing: one, affordable food in a hygienic environment; two, a decent living for our local hawkers; and three, vibrant social spaces to bond our communities. These are good objectives to achieve individually; but together, they compete against one another. So, tradeoffs need to be made for an optimal outcome.

Let me start by recalling that the Government restarted building hawker centres in 2011, after a hiatus of almost 30 years. We were concerned about the lack of affordable dining-out options for Singaporeans at a time when there was a boom in coffee shops and food courts. Natural market forces were pushing up rents at those private food and beverage (F&B) outlets and, consequently, food prices. The public was concerned about the rising cost of living. In response to widespread appeals by Singaporeans, we resumed building hawker centres to serve as a ballast to stabilise cooked food prices against the emerging dominance of coffee shops and food courts.

The Government has committed to building 20 new hawker centres by 2027 in new estates or existing ones that are relatively underserved. These will provide about 800 new hawker stalls at significant investments. Each hawker centre costs $15 million to build. The Government absorbs the building costs and subsidises their ongoing maintenance but does not recover such costs from stall rental.

We recognise, however, that just by building new hawker centres, we cannot automatically expect them to be viable and sustainable. In the early 1970s, the Government started building hawker centres to resettle street hawkers, so as to improve hygiene and food safety standards. Over time, they became our signature community dining rooms. To this day, they enable us to preserve the important culture of eating out together, regardless of our status, rich or poor, young and old.

Over time, too, a good number of these first- and second-generation hawkers, who receive cheap subsidised rentals, only work short hours. Residents, in turn, feedback that some existing centres do not fully cater to their dining needs. I was at Shunfu Mart Food Centre during a recent Ministerial Community Visit in Bishan East-Thomson Constituency. The hawkers only open for breakfast and lunch; some even just for breakfast. Residents do not have access to affordable food in the evening. This situation reflects a need for the careful balancing act to look after the interests of both hawkers and the community. Ultimately, hawker centres exist to serve Singaporeans. But we also have to be fair to hawkers and safeguard their well-being.

Our social and demographic landscape has changed significantly. Today, the median age of our hawkers is about 60. We have about 6,000 cooked food stalls at our 114 hawker centres. More than one third of our hawkers and their assistants will retire in the next 10 years. Being a hawker is physically demanding. Many successful hawkers tell us that they hope their children will not follow in their footsteps. The challenges of the trade deter many young Singaporeans. We have to transform and find ways to make the hawker trade sustainable, or we may end up with hawker centres without hawkers.

The demographic profiles and needs of residents have also evolved, particularly in newer estates. Patrons are more well-travelled and demand fresh concepts and wider food variety. Hawker centres have to compete with coffee shops, food courts and other food outlets in the community. Even the traditional model of dine-in meals has been disrupted by central kitchens and food delivery services. We must help our hawkers meet these challenges, just like how we try to help our taxi drivers face the wave of challenges from disruptive competition like Uber and Grab.

To adapt to changing needs and circumstances, it is critical to find new operating models to sustain the hawker trade. This is similar to the role which the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) Fairprice has played in the supermarket landscape. Over the years, NTUC Fairprice has been innovating and moderating prices of essential groceries, which has catalysed the transformation of the mom-and-pop grocery shops. Over time, as customer profiles change, NTUC Fairprice continues to meet the needs of a wide spectrum of customers, by providing diverse product lines from affordable house brand options to premium brands. Even NTUC Fairprice would not have been sustainable if they only provided affordable alternatives without the attraction of choice for their customers.

This is why we are trialling the SEHC model for our new hawker centres. We have started at seven new hawker centres, out of more than 100 managed by the National Environment Agency (NEA). These SEHC operators bring new ideas and inject innovation that hawkers individually or the Government cannot. We are giving an opportunity to those with expertise and networks in the F&B industry to apply themselves to socially oriented purposes. For example, they are able to curate food stalls for quality and variety. They are also able to bring in famous food recipes and are better placed to run hawker incubation programmes to help sustain the hawker trade.

They also innovate to improve footfall and enhance vibrancy of the centres through better marketing and place-making programmes, and not just leave it to chance. As the single operator of each hawker centre, with F&B and management competencies, these SEHC operators can help our hawkers weather the competition from other F&B alternatives and adapt to technological disruptions better than the hawkers can individually. In time to come, the better SEHCs will develop capabilities to support and sustain the hawker trade that we will appreciate.

To ensure that we select the right operators who do not profiteer, NEA has put in place safeguards through the tender and evaluation processes. First, NEA favours operators with lower overall charges to stallholders. Operators are required to propose rentals and operating costs upfront and cannot change these over the term of the tenancy. Second, operators must be transparent about costs. All new charges, including optional charges for value-added services, must be approved by NEA. Third, a large part of the hawkers’ operating costs, like the Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) and table cleaning fees, are “pass-through” charges, which the operators do not benefit from. As a reality check, we compare some of these costs with the alternatives like hiring additional hawker assistants, or the consequences of cheap sourcing low-quality workers. Fourth, operators are required to reinvest at least 50% of any operating surplus into social benefits for the hawker centres and stallholders.

I am heartened by the recent public discussion on how existing NEA centres are run better than the SEHCs. It is testimony that existing hawker centres under NEA management have done well over the years to meet the needs of their communities and the hawkers. But it is not enough to keep doing things the same way. This is why we have to continue with the SEHC model.

Several Members asked what makes a successful hawker centre. I believe most of us have patronised our favourite stalls at popular hawker centres, such as at Tiong Bahru or Adam Road. Many such existing centres are well-established in their communities. They have anchor hawkers who draw customers from all over the island. The new hawker centres do not enjoy this advantage and need time to build up a clientele. Location and connectivity are important factors. New hawker centres at Kampung Admiralty and Our Tampines Hub (OTH), situated at transport nodes and co-located with other public services or amenities, have enjoyed good business. Higher business volume will help stallholders cope with costs.

On the whole, SEHCs have achieved good outcomes despite the short time they have started operations. Foremost, food prices at SEHCs are affordable and comparable to existing centres. These are generally lower than prices at surrounding coffee shops and food courts. We cannot force hawkers to sell at cheap prices for all dishes at each stall. Instead, the operators have made available at least one affordable meal option at $3 and below for each stall and allowed hawkers to determine prices for other dishes. This means that prices are not kept artificially low. Instead, operators work with hawkers to offer a range of food offerings at different price points, so that there are both attractive options that residents are willing to pay for and, at the same time, affordable options when residents want that. Some hawkers have also chosen to price their dishes low to attract more customers. For example, "Old Times" at the Kampung Admiralty Hawker Centre prices all dishes below $3. Indeed, at each SEHC, there are close to 40 affordable options of various kinds of meals from 40 different stalls.

Secondly, SEHC operators have curated food stalls for quality and variety. They have tapped on their networks of hawkers and have the expertise to conduct food tasting when letting out stalls. They have also introduced interesting food options, such as prawn paste chicken rice and halal zi char, and new dining concepts. This ensures a good variety of food options, which is not always a given in existing hawker centres. Even in popular hawker centres like Tekka, we can find rows of stalls offering similar food because NEA is required to award one vacant stall at a time based on tendered rentals to the highest bidder. NEA does not have a mechanism to curate an attractive collection of food options at each hawker centre, like in the case of the SEHC model. Such an allocation system run by NEA would be complex to execute and be subject to potential audit issues.

SEHCs are establishing themselves within their communities and serving the residents well. Ci Yuan Hawker Centre recently passed its three-year mark. The hawkers are doing well and 97% of them chose to renew their contracts in July this year. At Bukit Panjang Hawker Centre, the renewal rate is similarly high at 96%. SEHCs at Kampung Admiralty and OTH are also doing well with hardly any vacant stalls and a long waiting list of potential hawkers. This is similar to NEA-managed hawker centres, where only 3% of cooked food stalls are vacant.

SEHC operators have also kept their centres open during breakfast, lunch and dinner – a major request made by the public. In contrast, some existing hawker centres focus on only one or two main meals a day, and some hawkers only work three to four days a week. To ensure vibrancy, SEHC operators have also introduced creative initiatives to increase footfall, such as complimentary parking, lucky draw programmes and shuttle bus services for office workers.

The SEHCs are leading a new model of clean and productive hawker centres, applying the best practices they have learnt in the private sector to overcome the constraints of labour shortage. All the SEHCs come with productivity initiatives, such as automated tray return systems (ATRS) and centralised dishwashing (CDW). Providing trained and properly supervised cleaners and a more hygienic environment have increased table turnover rates, benefiting both patrons and hawkers. The average tray return rates at SEHCs are much higher than those at our existing hawker centres because of the operators' efforts in implementing the ATRS. It makes the jobs of our cleaners easier and alleviates manpower shortages that our hawkers face in looking for workers to wash dishes. During my walkabout at Shunfu Mart Food Centre, I had noticed an economy bee hoon and nasi lemak stall which had a faded sign advertising to hire a stall assistant. The hawker shared that her children were not interested in helping out at the stall and she had been unable to hire an assistant despite advertising for a long time.

SEHCs have also managed to attract new entrants to sustain the hawker trade. The median age of hawkers at the seven SEHCs is 43, significantly lower than the median 60 at our existing centres. This is an encouraging sign and can be attributed to various initiatives introduced by SEHC operators, for example, Timbre's Incubator Programme and OTMH's Train and Place Entrepreneurship Scheme nurture new hawkers. Collectively, the five SEHC operators have trained a total of 38 aspiring hawkers since they started operations. These efforts complement NEA's ongoing incubation stall programme (ISP), which has supported 12 aspiring hawkers to date. Eight of them are still on the programme, while the rest had decided that they were either not suitable for the hawker trade or withdrew due to personal reasons. In addition, the operators have introduced productivity measures, such as centralised dishwashing, which allow hawkers to focus on their cooking and reduce the amount of menial tasks they need to do. Taken together, these initiatives reduce the physical burden of being a hawker and can go a long way to help sustain our hawker trade.

Nonetheless, the SEHCs will take time to establish themselves. Ci Yuan Hawker Centre, the first SEHC, only started operating three years ago, with the latest at Pasir Ris opening in January. Hawkers at these new centres need time to build up a clientele. Overall, the average monthly stall vacancy at SEHCs, at about 10%, is not exceptionally high and is not a bad result, considering that most stalls are new. Many of the hawkers are also new to the trade and need time to experiment with their recipes and decide if this is the career for them. The centres also need time to build up footfall.

The market mechanism is working, and the Government should not intervene unnecessarily in mandating low or no rental, which could otherwise affect fair competition. Hawkers are entrepreneurs after all. We want to reward successful hawkers to sustain the trade and preserve our beloved hawker heritage. It is natural to have some level of churn as better hawkers replace those who are less suited for the trade. Market forces would lead to a fair distribution of hawker stalls, which ultimately benefits residents. It is inappropriate for the Government to subsidise a hawker on the basis that business is poor. This would be unfair to a better performing hawker who thrives on healthy competition. It would also be unfair to other private sector food shop operators located in close vicinity to the centres. The model must, therefore, ensure that rentals and costs are transparent and fair to hawkers, but cannot subsidise hawkers to the extent that it distorts the workings of the market.

In summary, despite implementation challenges, the SEHC model is generally sound. Food prices are kept affordable with a good variety of high-quality options, and the majority of hawkers are doing well at the SEHCs. We should not undo these achievements. As with any trials and experiments, we cannot always get it right the first time. We have heard the feedback and will adjust the model to better serve Singaporeans. We will continue with the SEHC model and improve it so as to serve patrons well and look after the well-being of our hawkers.

I ask Members to give the model time to adapt, adjust and optimise the outcomes we seek to achieve: first, the availability of affordable food options that do not deny respectable earnings for our hawkers and, at the same time, moderate the free market F&B alternatives; second, a decent living for our local hawkers that is sustainable even while providing affordable options; and third, to preserve our hawker centres, where we are proud of our unique vibrant social spaces as community dining rooms where everyone goes to, where affordable food is also good food.

Senior Minister of State Amy Khor will take the rest of the questions and then we will take the supplementary questions. Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

Thank you. Let me first thank Members for their questions and concerns for our hawker centres. In fact, I would like to take this opportunity to thank members of the public for the many views, discussions and suggestions that they have put forward. We appreciate such views and feedback to help us to improve to better serve our hawkers and Singaporeans.

I will speak on our efforts to better support our hawkers and look after their well-being.

As a regulator, NEA must strike a balance between serving the public well, and ensuring the well-being of hawkers, while working to achieve the social objectives of our hawker centres. Residents should have access to affordable food in a clean setting for all three meals. At the same time, hawkers must be able to make a decent living, under fair tenancy terms and conditions.

As with any trial, it is difficult to get the SEHC model right from the start, especially since we have not built new hawker centres for almost 30 years. So, we set some key parameters. Let the market work; and when we get feedback, or issues are raised, we will move to address them swiftly and decisively, as we have done in the past month or so. We are not done with the stock-take of the model and will continue to refine it to better serve Singaporeans. I will outline three areas of improvements which we have made and will continue to focus on.

First, we will better support stallholders to manage costs. My Ministry, together with the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI), conducted a study on the drivers of hawker centre food prices in 2014. We found that the costs of raw materials and manpower made up the bulk of the hawkers' costs at 76%, not stall rentals, which only comprised 12%. It is also shown through studies by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) that hawkers generally price food according to what the market can bear.

This is influenced by competition in the vicinity and the demographic profile of customers. Hence, rentals do not directly affect food prices. Nonetheless, for both our existing hawker centres and our new SEHCs or new centres, we have put in place measures to ensure that rentals are fair and not speculative. For existing centres, we have removed the reserve rent and disallowed subletting and assignment. For new centres, we have, in our tender evaluation, favoured tenderers who offer lower total rental and operating costs, and prohibit any increases in rentals or operating costs for the duration of the tenancy, as one of our priorities is to safeguard the interests of our hawkers.

The median rental of stalls in SEHCs is about $2,000 per month, not $4,000 per month as some media reports have claimed. The median rental of stalls in comparable existing hawker centres is $1,700 per month, which is comparable to those of the new centres after accounting for the larger stall size, better-designed stalls and amenities at the new centres and, in some cases, the co-location of the new centres with residential properties as well as other amenities.

Stall sizes at our new centres of between 10 square metres (sqm) and 21 sqm are much larger than existing centres, which are between five sqm and 13 sqm. Additionally, the actual stall rentals at our new centres range from $750 to $3,700 a month. This is in line with rentals of non-subsidised stalls at our comparable existing centres, which range from $640 to $3,900 a month.

Our hawker centre rentals, specifically those at SEHCs, are not linked to the rentals of surrounding coffee shops and food courts. In fact, they are nowhere near the rentals at these private F&B outlets, which can range from $4,000 to $13,000 a month, before other operating costs. We will continue to monitor and ensure that stall rentals in our new centres are reasonable to enable hawkers to make a decent living.

As for existing hawker centres, no stallholders are paying astronomical rentals. The recent $10,000 bid was an outlier, and the bidder did not even commence operations. Besides rentals, the operating costs at the SEHCs and existing centres are comparable, too. For example, S&CC at the new centres are between $110 and $350 a month, within the range of $130 to $450 a month at our existing centres. Similarly, table-cleaning fees at the SEHCs are between $300 and $550 a month, again, within the range of $200 to $830 a month at our existing centres. Operating costs payable by hawkers at existing centres also frequently do not take into account the costs for dishwashing. At the majority of our existing centres, without centralised dishwashing (CDW), stallholders may have to hire dishwashers which could cost up to $1,500 a month, which is much higher than the average CDW charges. Moreover, these hawkers often have difficulties hiring and retaining such hawker assistants, as my Minister has said earlier, too.

Nonetheless, to further help SEHC stallholders manage costs, we announced last week that we will extend the PHC grants to these hawkers for two years, effective from 1 January next year.

With the grant extension, stallholders at our new centres will enjoy 50% reduction in their CDW costs for the first year and 30% for the second year. Currently, these grants are only available to hawkers at our existing centres under the PHC format. However, after a few years of operations with the new centres, we recognise that hawkers at the new centres may also need some support in transition as they need time to build up their clientele. These productivity solutions, such as CDW and automated tray return systems (ATRS), are necessary to alleviate our tight manpower situation and help hawkers solve problems like staff shortage. The average tray return rates of our SEHCs are far higher, at about 58%, than those at our existing hawker centres which are at about 25%. But we can do better. First and foremost, patrons should form the habit of returning their trays with the crockery after eating.

A high tray return rate will directly benefit both patrons as well as hawkers as it will lead to a faster turnover of tables, keep the birds away and lead to a cleaner environment that helps attract patrons.

It will also ease the workload of our cleaners so that the cleaning companies do not have to keep increasing the number of cleaners, which will eventually lead to higher cleaning costs for the hawkers. Even if they want to increase the number of cleaners, they consistently face manpower shortage and issues with hiring.

Greater public education and close partnership between operators, hawkers and patrons are key. Everyone must play their part towards ensuring a clean environment in our hawker centres to benefit both patrons and hawkers. In fact, most hawkers have welcomed the productivity initiatives implemented at our new hawker centres. Toh Swee Han, a 39-year-old hawker operating the "Mang Cheng Xiang Curry Rice" stall at OTH Hawker Centre, said that he was satisfied with CDW as it helped him reduce his cleaning costs significantly. He highlighted that CDW fees at OTH added up to only $700, before the productivity subsidy, while it would cost him about $3,000 to hire two assistants to cover the same workload.

CDW also saves stallholders from paying additional water charges or managing an inventory of crockery and cutlery that has to be replaced due to wear and tear or loss. Hygiene is better as they do not have to carry out dishwashing within the stall area. We hope that this will alleviate the workload of our hawkers, especially the older hawkers, and make the trade more attractive to our younger hawkers by reducing menial work.

Following a Call-for-Collaboration (CFC) led by Enterprise Singapore (ESG), on behalf of NEA, HDB and JTC, NEA is partnering Network for Electronic Transfers (NETS) to provide interoperable e-payment solutions to our hawkers. Stallholders in SEHCs can take up the CFC e-payment solution for three years without paying transaction costs or terminal rental. This will provide an additional option to SEHC operators to encourage stallholders to opt for e-payment.

The above subsidies will help to reduce the operating costs of our hawkers at the new centres in their initial years. These will support them as they build up their customer base.

There may be some other fees from value-added services that the SEHC operators provide, such as coin changing services, but these are optional.

Second, NEA will rebalance the soft touch regulatory approach towards SEHC operators and exercise greater oversight to safeguard hawkers' well-being. NEA has reviewed some of the key contractual terms between the SEHC operators and stallholders. Some of the terms were replicated from contracts the operators use in the other food establishments that they run. In practice, operators have actually exercised flexibility with these terms. NEA has taken in the feedback of hawkers and worked with the operators to make four key changes as an immediate priority.

Operators will be more flexible on stallholders' operating hours. Stallholders will not be required to work more than five days a week or eight hours a day, although they could if they wish to.

Operators will also engage stallholders who intend to open more than eight hours a day on how they intend to do so and whether they would have sufficient manpower, for example, through engaging stall assistants or joint operators. As asked by a Member, operators can also decide if it is feasible to install food vending machines to meet meal requirements beyond operating hours, especially for small meals or snacks.

Operators will not require a notice period of more than two months for stallholders to terminate their tenancies or require security deposits exceeding two months’ rental. This would address concerns of some stallholders being locked into their tenancies.

Operators who impose liquidated damages on stallholders for regulatory or other breaches will limit these payments to no more than $50 per day for minor ones and $100 per day for major breaches. They will also bear all legal fees related to the tenancy.

NEA will continue to engage both hawkers and operators to address concerns in other areas. For instance, at OTH, the community had initially asked for a 24-hour hawker centre. But as the demand from patrons has not materialised, both hawkers and the operator will recalibrate the arrangement. With the changes made to operating hours, hawkers who do not wish to continue with the 24-hour operations which they had previously signed up for, can do so now. NEA will also ask operators to communicate stall tenancy agreement terms in simple language to ensure that potential stallholders can understand them clearly before they commit to run the hawker stalls.

In our contractual review, we found that the operators, indeed, have shown flexibility. For example, we have not observed any operators charging stallholders rentals for the remaining of their tenancy terms, in the case of premature termination. The operators have also agreed to make changes to the terms I have just described, and to waive any legal fees for new tenancy contracts and renewals.

Whilst there is a need to rebalance our soft touch regulatory approach towards our SEHC operators, we recognise, as I have said, that they have shown flexibility through the contract review process, and are making changes to some of their terms and practices. They have also shown innovation and creativity in implementing measures to drive footfall to the centres. These include family carnivals and loyalty programmes, which offer discounts and other promotions to build up a pool of repeat patrons.

In fact, many of these operators have been bearing the cost of various initiatives to improve footfall at the centres, such as free shuttle bus services and free parking not long after the centres began operations. They are required under the terms of our tender to plough back at least 50% of any operating surplus for the social benefits of the hawker centres. This, plus our tender process which favours operators who charge lower total rental and operating costs and our prohibition on SEHC operators to increase any rental or operating costs over the tenancy period, limits the extent of any operating surplus.

These safeguards are part of our efforts to manage and reduce the risks of profiteering. We stand ready to act decisively should there be any mismanagement by the SEHC operators. Potential measures include imposing liquidated damages, or even termination of their contracts.

As part of our ongoing stocktake, NEA will look at the selection criteria for operators, what to leave to market forces and whether any other safeguards should be prescribed.

Third, all SEHC operators have set up structured feedback channels for their hawkers and have had at least one meeting. They will continue to engage their hawkers regularly and address concerns together and quickly. NEA officers will be present at these meetings. I am hopeful that such structured and regular meetings will help encourage communication, resolve day-to-day issues and also reduce misunderstandings.

I attended one of these meetings at Ci Yuan Hawker Centre. The atmosphere was constructive and stallholders had positive experiences to share. For example, Zhang Li Jun, a 29-year-old hawker who has been operating the "Teochew Satay Bee Hoon" stall since 2015, said that with the Hawkers' Feedback Group, operators could proactively seek hawkers’ views on various matters relating to the hawker centre and stalls, and also work together on ideas to help the centre do better.

I had a fruitful dialogue recently with HC3.0 committee members, hawkers and food advocates passionate about preserving our hawker culture. The participants contributed many ideas and we have agreed to set up a ground-up workgroup, comprising hawkers and other experts, to look at how to support new entrants to the hawker trade and sustain our hawker culture. We shall share details when ready.

Many of the new centres are doing well. When I visited Kampung Admiralty Hawker Centre recently, the place was crowded and many patrons shared with me that they were happy with the wide selection of hawker food at affordable prices. One patron even told me about the $2.60 mee siam sold by "The House 22". Similarly, I met a group of ladies who frequent the OTH Hawker Centre. They excitedly told me how happy they were with the many tasty hawker fare offered there, such as laksa by "Social Bite", and "Chicken Rice @ OTH". In fact, the father of Mr Kiang, who runs "Chicken Rice @ OTH", was among the pioneer batch of chefs who developed the famous Chatterbox chicken rice at Mandarin Hotel. So, I share with you this little secret, which means that the next time I go, it will be a longer queue.

But for those centres which are not doing so well, we are working with the operators and stallholders to increase footfall, improve business and serve their patrons better. What they need now is our support, not speculation and negative publicity that will keep patrons away and cause stallholders more hardship. The latest efforts to discuss and resolve issues through regular dialogue is the right way to go.

In summary, we will continue to make adjustments and recalibrate the SEHC model to ensure that it continues to achieve the key social outcomes of our hawker centres, which are: to provide affordable food in a clean environment, allow our hawkers to make a decent living and build communities. We will seek and listen to feedback from hawkers and patrons and continue with our stocktake to further improve the model.

Next year, we are nominating hawker culture for inscription on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. It is a community-based effort involving many stakeholders, including our hawkers, to sustain the hawker trade. The UNESCO nomination will be an important recognition of our hawkers, as we let the world know about our local food and multicultural heritage. As of 18 November, we have received 133,000 pledges online. I urge Members and all Singaporeans who have yet to pledge to do so on the Our SG Heritage website.

I am heartened by the passionate discussions and support for hawker food and our hawkers. To sustain the hawker trade and preserve our hawker culture, I urge everyone to patronise our hawker stalls and support them. I wonder if all Members in this House have visited our new hawker centres. If you have not, I urge you to show your support by visiting and patronising them with your families and friends.

Let me share that there are many interesting and tasty hawker fare at these centres. So, a few more secrets, including some of my favourites, such as delicious min jiang kueh by “Munchi” at Yishun Park Hawker Centre, chendol from the dessert stall at Ci Yuan Hawker Centre run by a young hawkerpreneur, and zi char from “Jian Fa BBQ Seafood” at OTH Hawker Centre, just to name a few. Parents should bring their children to our hawker centres to appreciate our hawker culture and heritage food. Our hawker centres should not be treated as nice-to-have dining options, but an important part of our living and evolving culture as, after all, we started building new hawker centres again because of the many appeals from the community for the hawker centres.

I am confident that our hawker centres will continue to thrive as community dining rooms, bringing together Singaporeans from all walks of life and strengthening our bonds as a country.

Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister and the Senior Minister of State for their very elaborate response. I think many Singaporeans and myself really enjoy all the hawker food and we are supportive of the idea, including the need to try new models for what is relevant for our time. But for the fact that because the term is called "social enterprise", it needs to clearly demonstrate that there is this element of social benefits, whether it is for the hawkers themselves or even for the consumers. I have two clarifications that I would like to ask the Minister or the Senior Minister of State.

Firstly, for the grant that is given, for example, on the productivity initiatives, are these operators actually mandated to pass through all these benefits to the hawkers or are the hawkers paying extra for the e-payment system, the tray return system and so on?

Secondly, the Senior Minister of State mentioned about the need for 50% of the surplus to be translated back to social benefits. Can the Senior Minister of State elaborate more on what are these social benefits?

For the PHC Grant of 50% and 30% for first and second year respectively, these would directly benefit the hawkers, because 50% of the cost of the CDW will be deducted from the payment they have to make for the CDW. So, it would be a direct benefit to the hawkers.

Regarding the sharing of any operating surplus, it is in the terms of the tender agreement with the operator that, firstly, if they are not a social enterprise, they would have to set up a separate entity to tender for the hawker centre because we require them to submit an annual set of audited accounts to us. And if there are any operating surplus, the condition is that they have to plough at least 50% of this operating surplus back to benefit the hawker centre, the hawkers or the community. Some of the proposals that have been made by the successful tenderers are, for instance, providing meal vouchers for needy residents or the elderly within the community, or sharing some of this operating surplus with the hawkers in terms of providing discounted meal vouchers or one-for-one meal vouchers, for instance, like Yishun Timbre+ does, to give to the residents so that they can purchase and part of the meal would be funded from the operating surplus.

So, there are various programmes. Or it could be the training of hawkers or helping the low-income, for instance, to set up a hawker stall there. But if there is an operating surplus, they will have to propose how they want to plough this benefit back into the community or the hawker centre, and it would be subject to NEA's approval.

Sir, I would like to applaud NEA for resuming the building of hawker centres. It is a welcome move. In fact, I was one of those who lobbied very hard to have a hawker centre in Yishun. But many of us would like to see the hawker centres that are run by NEA that provide good and cheap food. I have three supplementary questions.

I know that the Minister and Senior Minister of State have explained about the social enterprise hawker centres. But a lot of residents are asking what is the definition of "social enterprise". We do not see voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) who come in, but we see those social enterprises that are set up by big companies. So, what is their motivation?

The second question: does this translate into lower cooked food prices? Is there any study done? How do you ensure that economic meals that are available at the hawker centres are available all the time? Because residents have told me that they were very often told "卖 完 了", or sold out. If they want to buy the economic meals, the answer is, "卖 完 了". I would like to know whether there is any checking?

The third question: what I understand is that hawkers are managed by social enterprise hawker centre companies. Then, NEA staff oversee the social enterprise company. What my residents have been asking is: why can we not take away all these layers? Why can NEA itself not run the hawker centre, build up its own internal capability? This is something that many residents hope to see; they would like to see the old type of the hawker centres that offer good food at cheap prices, rather than giving us a hawker centre that is very beautiful but then, most of the time, the food is more expensive than at the coffee shops.

Lastly, I think the Minister did not answer my Question No 4 on the Incubation Stall Programme. I think there is such a programme and I would like to know how many have been under this programme and whether they continued beyond the incubation period and, if they do not continue, what are the reasons?

The Member has raised five questions in total, I think.

Firstly, about the motivation of SEHCs. First of all, this SEHC that the media has been using is a bit of a misnomer. We actually started by saying "socially-conscious operators". So, what we are saying is, operators who tender for these hawker centres and run them, there must be a social mission. So, a social enterprise could be one of the operators or interested party to tender for the hawker centres, but not necessarily must be a social enterprise. What we have done is that within the tender conditions, we have ensured that there is a social mission. As I have said earlier, the Minister had also said, there are various safeguards that we have put in place in the tender conditions to ensure that we need the social objectives of the hawker centres that we started building again in the first place. And that is to ensure that we have affordable food options of a good variety in a clean environment, ensure that our hawkers can make a decent living and, of course, preserve our hawker culture and ensure the vibrancy of our hawker centres.

We have said a number of times what these are. For instance, we favour operators who offer lower rentals and total operating costs. They cannot raise these rentals and operating costs through the term of the tenancy agreement. As I have said, there is also the requirement to plough back any operating surplus for social benefits to the hawker centres, the hawkers and the community. A good example of a socially-conscious operator would be NTUC First Campus (NFC), which is part of NTUC and is a cooperative. In selecting SEHCs, we also look out for how we can harness their expertise, which is actually the recommendation from the Hawker Centre Public Consultation Panel that we try and leverage the experience of these operators in F&B and in business management, in order to be able to put in place various initiatives and ideas to ensure and enhance the vibrancy of the hawker centres.

In relation to that, the Member had a question about why not let NEA continue to run hawker centres. The Minister had elaborated in detail some of the reasons why we need to look at new management model for our new hawker centres. The reasons are because there are inherent challenges in the hawker trade: ageing profile of our hawkers, where our existing hawkers' age profile is 60 years, which means that within 10 years' time, one third would retire if we do not attract new hawkers into the trade. So, it is renewal, manpower constraints, as well as the evolving needs and tastes of patrons; how do you ensure that what you offer meets the needs and demands of patrons? Also, in existing hawker centres, as the Minister had elaborated, our existing hawker centres have been around for years; they are already established. Many of them have anchor hawkers who are able to pull in the crowds. But on the other hand, you would also note that many existing hawker centres, when you go, you are sometimes not sure whether the stall is open. Only 35% of our hawkers in existing hawker centres open for three meals. Most of them for one or two meals; some only work three to four days. So, does this then meet the needs of our community, especially the newer communities where there are many dual-income families and they need to access food through the day and through the week for three meals?

These are some of the challenges and, therefore, we looked at how we can try out and pilot new management models in order to overcome these challenges and to meet our social objectives. Indeed, SEHCs have resulted in positive outcomes. There are, of course, teething issues, and we are committed to looking at how we can recalibrate, make adjustments and improve the model, even as we look to implementing it for our new hawker centres.

Economical meals – how come they are not available? It depends on which point in time of the day you go to the stalls. Basically, the majority of the SEHC stalls do offer at least one affordable option. But let me say that we only ask that they offer at least one affordable option and we are not asking them to artificially suppress the prices of all their food options. In fact, they can sell all the other food options at different price points, and that is really the concept of a community dining room, where people from all walks of life can come together, share a table and enjoy a meal at different price points. And that will ensure that they will be able to make a decent livelihood. Whichever hawker centre does not have enough of those economical meals, we can talk about it and we can talk to the operators. I have been to many of them and they do offer affordable options, and these are good options.

Regarding the question on incubation stalls, we have launched an Incubation Stall Programme last year, just about over a year ago. When we started, we identified 13 stalls that we pre-fitted and we offered these to aspiring new hawkers who are not sure if they are interested to join the trade; they are passionate but they are not sure if they can make it. So, we offered these stalls to them, subject to certain conditions, of course. They can rent these pre-fitted stalls for six months at 50% of the assessed market rent, and that is to allow them to try out. It is pre-fitted, so we reduce the initial capital cost.

So far, we have received some 40 applications. We have increased the number of incubation stalls to 15. Ten stalls have been taken up and we have a list of applicants now which we are processing to lease out the remaining incubation stalls. This actually complements the Entrepreneurship Programme and the Place and Train Programmes offered by the SEHC operators because many of the operators also offer training and entrepreneurship programmes for new hawkers. In fact, they have actually been relatively successful. Ci Yuan, for instance, trained 16 aspiring hawkers and 10 are still in Ci Yuan Hawker Centre, and they have converted to permanent hawkers and are doing well. One of them just got married.

Sir, while I can appreciate the merits of the social enterprise model and, indeed, we should continue to let the model evolve, I want to ask the Minister or Senior Minister of State whether the social enterprise model is the only way to go for new hawker centres. Is NEA open to other models as well, such as, for example, Management Corporation Stata Title (MCST)-type, where the hawkers can come together to self-manage, or for NEA to still run the new hawker centres at least for a while and then transiting to the non-NEA-run model?

I think we are open to any model as long as it is able to achieve the social objectives that we have set up for our new hawker centres, which is about providing affordable food options, moderating food prices, ensuring that the hawkers make a decent living and building communities.

So, clearly, we are open. But we also need to note that whatever model that we may adopt, there will always be challenges even as there may be benefits and, therefore, we need to give it time to settle down. Our SEHC model is a good example. We implemented it only about three years ago. In fact, the last one, Pasir Ris Hawker Centre, was just opened this year. So, it is really in its infancy; it is still evolving. We had set it up with the intention that we will continue to monitor, evaluate, refine and improve the model.

But having said that, the SEHCs, at the present moment, have actually resulted in many positive outcomes for both patrons as well as hawkers and we do not want to undo those achievements. Therefore, we will see how we can better calibrate and make adjustments to the model. But as I have said, we are open to any model because the idea really is to benefit patrons, Singaporeans and hawkers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Minister and Senior Minister of State for their patience in addressing our questions. My question is: if hawkers are self-employed, then how can they be compelled by social enterprises or by the Government to work certain hours or to meet other conditions of work? The problem seems to be that we are expecting the hawkers to bear some of the burdens of being an employee, but without the benefits of a guaranteed and stable income, for example.

First of all, let me say that we have actually worked with our operators. So, now, one of the key changes we have made to the contracts is that they need not open more than five days. They are required to open only five days, eight hours a day. The hawkers are small businesses, entrepreneurs. They enter into an agreement with the operators to operate a hawker stall subject to, of course, various conditions that they are agreeable to, and these are some of the conditions.

The reason why you have to implement some minimum operating hours as well as minimum number of days, really, is because we want to make sure that the hawker centres are able to provide three meals – breakfast, lunch and dinner, throughout the day, and throughout the week – in order to ensure the vibrancy of the hawker centres. The hawker centres are built to serve the community, and one of the needs of the community, as I have said, especially in newer housing estates, is to have access to these food options for the three key meals. If you do not agree to such operating hours, then it would come back to the same thing that in some existing hawker centres, when you go there, they are closed or they are open for only half a day and it does not serve the needs of the community. So, we are not compelling them. They actually enter into the agreement voluntarily and knowingly.

Senior Minister of State, I think my question has yet to get an answer, that is, cost structure between the subsidised and non-subsidised stalls, one by NEA and one by another model. I would like to know, generally, what are the operating costs, what are the similar ones and what are not the subsidised ones.

First, let me explain that for both our existing hawker centres and our new centres, the construction costs of the hawker centres, as well as the cost of upgrading and maintaining the hawker centres are not recovered through the rentals. So, there is already an implicit Government subsidy for both.

The cost structure for both existing centres' non-subsidised stalls and new centres, really, is quite similar. Earlier on in my reply, I already gave a comparison in terms of rentals, that, basically, they are quite comparable and in line, taking into account the differences in age, stall size and so on of the hawker centres. In terms of operating costs, it is also quite similar, and I have also given Members a comparison. There will be costs in terms of service and conservancy charges, table cleaning. These are the key ones. For dishwashing, what you see, for instance, when you compare, some people will say, "How come it is much lower in the existing hawker centres?" That is because of the cost element of dishwashing is often not taken into account in the existing hawker centres since most of the existing centres do not have CDWs. But if you were to take that in, you have to employ somebody for say, $1,500, just to wash dishes, or if the existing hawker centre has a CDW system, then the essential costs are actually quite similar.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State on hawker stall rentals. I believe that the Senior Minister of State said that the higher end of the hawker stall rental range is around $13,000. At about $3.00 or $3.50 a plate, the hawker will need to sell at least 3,000 plates just to cover the rent. If our hawker stalls are to serve the objective of keeping our food prices affordable, will the Ministry consider implementing a cap on the rental to better manage food prices? Even at half that rental, at $5,000, you will still need sell at least 1,500 to 2,000 plates a month just to cover the rental.

Let me correct the Member. I did not say that the top-end rental at our hawker centres is $13,000. The range of $4,000 to $13,000 is, based on our survey, the rentals for coffee shops and food courts, not hawker centres. That is very important. What I said was that the rental of our hawker centres, new hawker centres, is nowhere near to where the rentals are for food courts and coffee shops which range, based on our survey, from $4,000 to $13,000, net of operating cost. The rentals for our new hawker centres, median rental, is about $2,000, net of operating cost.

As I have said earlier, what we are asking is that, to achieve our social objectives of offering affordable food prices as well as moderating food prices in the vicinity, at least one food option which is affordable, and most of these new centres have put that at about $3.00 or $2.80. Just one food option. We are not asking them to sell everything at budget prices. Therefore, they have a range of options. In fact, if you go to the hawker centres, there is a soup stall that I saw in Kampung Admiralty, the prices range from $2.80 to $14.00 because it is premium; maybe there are scallops and all that.

Thank you, Sir. The Senior Minister of State mentioned that 50% of the surplus from the social enterprise must be ploughed back to the hawker centres or hawkers. I would like to find out what will happen to the remaining 50%. Does it go back to the company?

Actually, to Member Melvin's question about rental cap which I have forgotten to comment on, our existing hawker centres, the non-subsidised stalls, are actually let out by tender. So, there is already a range of rental indications, and, in fact, we have removed the reserve rent. Therefore, even for our new hawker centres, when we evaluate the tenders, there are two things that we do. First, we get the professional valuers to assess what a reasonable market rent will be, and they actually make reference to the tendered rents of the existing hawker centres, and we also use that as a guide. So, we will continue to monitor rentals to ensure that they are fair and reasonable to our hawkers so that they can make a decent livelihood.

With regard to the 50% surplus, at least 50% must go back to social benefits, the other 50%, of course, they can keep. But so far, for our new hawker centres, those that have already submitted their audited accounts, none of them had accumulated any operating surplus. It has only been one to three years. It just goes to show that just as new hawker centres need time to build up, to establish themselves, so do the operators.