Hawker Culture

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion raised by my colleague Mr Leong Mun Wai.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker, it is without a doubt that Singaporeans love our hawker food and it is something which we all hold dear and close to our hearts. Our hawker centres are deeply ingrained in our cultural identity and our collective memories, and these familiar communal spaces and their associated sights, smells and tastes are what make Singapore feel like home for many of us. Just ask anyone who has been abroad for even just a week.

We are also passionately protective of our hawker food culture, to the extent that there is always some healthy debate among Singaporeans about which hawker stall serves the best Hokkien mee or, for that matter, some friendly rivalry with our friends across the Causeway about whether the Kuala Lumpur-style Hokkien mee with its thick egg noodles stir fried with black soy sauce is superior or the Singapore-style Hokkien mee with a mixture of yellow wheat noodles and bee hoon braised in prawn stock.

However, there could be little left to protect, with our hawker food culture at risk of eroding rapidly, and the sustainability and very existence of our hawkers under threat, if we do not take proactive steps to fix the current issues at hand and remodel the way our hawker trade is managed today.

On that note, Mr Speaker, while I had initially wanted to raise a similar matter in an Adjournment Motion, I will still cover the same points in my speech today on three broad areas: addressing the business costs for hawkers, addressing the cost of living for Singaporeans and, lastly, on revitalising the industry.

The very existence of our hawkers hinges on whether it is sustainable for the hawkers to ply their trade and operate a financially viable business. In recent years, there has been no lack of news about F&B operators closing, even some high-profile hawkers whom many find surprising, given their popularity with patrons. A recent example is Zhong Xing Foochow Fish Balls and Lor Mee in Bukit Merah, where the owners lamented that they had to close their 82-year-old family-run business, due to their old age, an impending doubling in rent and unwillingness to pass on higher prices to their regular customers, many of whom are the elderly.

Caught between rising costs and the difficulty or even reluctance in raising prices, many hawkers are simply finding it difficult to sustain a decent livelihood. Addressing the business costs for hawkers is thus a key thrust of my speech today.

Our conversations with hawkers suggest that rentals and their associated costs for raw materials and manpower are the key costs for running their businesses. The NEA noted from its survey that raw materials and manpower were the main cost drivers for stallholders in hawker centres, at 56% and 20% of operating costs respectively in 2022. However, it is important to point out that while the cost of ingredients is a key variable cost for our hawkers, rentals represent a key overhead cost that imposes a high hurdle that hawkers have to overcome on a monthly basis, before they can even start to make a profit, leading many to feel as though they are working for the landlord for a long time before working for themselves. And the cycle repeats every month, with many hesitant to take a long break as a result.

Importantly, rentals are a key cost component that we can influence and try to control, as opposed to raw material costs which are primarily dependent on global commodity price trends and may not be directly under the Government’s control.

Moreover, we see that even for the largest listed F&B companies in Singapore, their pre-tax margins hover between a low single digit margin and even losses. So, for our hawkers operating at a much smaller scale, every single percentage point counts. Whether rentals represent 10% or 20% of operating costs, bringing rentals down by even a few percentage points from their total operating costs could mean the difference between shutting down or not. This is where I believe we can easily do more to better support our hawkers.

In my speech during the Committee of Supply debates earlier this year, I was comforted to hear that there was a rental cap for this year’s Geylang Serai Ramadan Bazaar, similar to that in 2019. To quote the Minister of State for Home Affairs and National Development Faishal Ibrahim: "We hear you. For Bazaar Raya Geylang Serai 2024, we are taking steps to ensure that it is more affordable for our sellers and consumers". Whether it is the F&B stalls at the bazaar or at our hawker centres, I believe the affordability concerns remain. Could we not adopt the same rental cap idea for our NEA-operated hawker centres?

In addition, I would also like to propose again we should phase out the price-only tender system entirely. I am sure many of you would have seen the new record set for hawker rentals at Marine Parade Central Market and Food Centre, where the vacant unit #01-29 set a new record in the July 2024 tender at S$10,158 per month.

Whether or not the particular stall passes on the higher costs, which I believe is only logical, is just one aspect of the problem. The other aspect is that if such a trend continues, this will have knock-on effects on the supposed market rate as determined by an independent professional valuation, leading to higher market rents and an upward spiral for other hawkers if this persists as well.

Moving from a price-only tender would reduce a significant amount of financial pressure for both hawkers and consumers, and also reduce the current environment that is favourable to large franchisors or those with deep pockets, as opposed to the enterprising and innovative hawkers starting out on their own.

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

If it is implementation challenges that NEA is concerned about, I would suggest that they work with the HDB commercial teams to understand how this is being done for what is essentially the same trade. A hawker whom I spoke to, who is very supportive of the PQM method, also suggested some factors for the NEA’s consideration, such as the pricing of their products, operating hours, whether they are young hawker entrepreneurs and the heritage value of the product, to begin with.

At present, there are more than 100 markets and hawker centres managed by NEA with about 13 SEHCs. I wish to reiterate a point raised in the Workers’ Party 2020 manifesto, which called on all hawker centres to eventually be brought under NEA control, as that would provide the necessary long-term assurance to hawkers that there are governmental levers of control over rents, not only today, but also tomorrow.

The ultimate goal of an SEHC is to make a profit and not provide a public good. Hence, hawkers are often at the behest of their SEHC operators. With operators having access to point of sales (POS) data, these operators are incentivised to maximise the rentals and occupancy costs of their hawkers, which, while in the best financial interest of the SEHC operator, may not be in the interest of the hawkers and ultimately consumers. Such an environment will also not be conducive to creative budding entrepreneurs, but favour established chains with scale, and the lack of diversification of our hawker food mix may even be a consequence. Having all hawker centres under the common management of the NEA also creates consistency in criteria, standards and policies for all hawkers to follow.

To be fair, I am not painting all SEHC operators with the same broad brush. But there are certainly some questionable practices of certain operators which require urgent attention today, even if plans for the centralised management of SEHCs are not implemented immediately.

Certain SEHC operators impose highly onerous contracts in the pages, which are to the detriment of hawkers rather than being supportive of them. These include monthly payments for an expensive POS system on a recurring basis compared to them purchasing their own at a lower cost over a period of time, strict terms and conditions, including the imposition of liquidated damages for a long list of terms and conditions, such as business hours and stall closures without written notices, failure to support their loyalty app or even broad-based terms, such as the refusal to cooperate with the landlord. Are consumers and hawkers benefiting from some of these onerous terms?

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

Next, I move on to addressing the cost of living for Singaporeans. Short of stating the obvious, we all need to eat and it is a matter of sustenance and survival. I believe the public do understand and appreciate that running a hawker stall entails rising overhead costs, along with other intangible factors, such as long preparation hours, the years of honing and refining their recipe and craft, and the hot and sweaty work environment.

Nevertheless, the increase in business costs borne by our hawkers has ostensibly trickled down to diners, who are already squeezed by rising costs elsewhere. This is best exemplified by the staggering 6.1% hike in hawker food prices in 2023 which, according to the Singapore Department of Statistics, could be attributed to higher input costs.

The Government’s approach to tame the rise in hawker food prices is through the introduction of the Budget Meal Programme, which aims to have all 374 HDB rented eating houses provide at least four meal options priced at $3.50 and below, and two drink items priced at $1.20 and below by 2026.

Our hawkers are trapped between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, they must contend with price hikes in raw ingredients and utilities, coupled with high rentals. On the other hand, seeing how price increases could potentially turn away customers whilst worsening the financial burden experienced by low-income patrons, many stall owners are hesitant about raising their prices. Now, with the requirement to sell their budget meals at a Government-mandated “budget” price at the expense of their already-dwindling incomes, hawkers ultimately bear the biggest brunt of the budget meal scheme.

As lamented by a hawker interviewed by The Straits Times in an article dated 1 June 2024: “It is impossible to make a profit from these meals”.

In an attempt to maintain their livelihoods, several hawkers have turned to other methods to cover costs from their budget meals, often at the expense of the meal’s quality. For example, there have been instances of budget meals with small portion sizes, while several have also noticed nutritionally imbalanced budget meal offerings with heaps of carbohydrates coupled with little to no proteins.

Our hawkers, many of whom are sole proprietors, should not have the Herculean task of shouldering the burden of providing Singaporeans with “cheap” meals to cope with the cost of living crisis. In fact, they should have the freedom of setting their own prices, given that they have an astute understanding of their business costs and the need to sustain their livelihoods, whilst keeping it affordable enough to ensure a steady flow of customers.

Instead of mandating the menu prices that hawkers should set and having our hawkers shoulder the burden of addressing food costs, the Government ought to do more to ensure the affordability of hawker food, given that it has the capacity and resources to do so.

The Government has introduced CDC Vouchers to be used at participating merchants, which would help reduce the out-of-pocket costs when purchasing food or groceries. Nevertheless, several residents have experienced difficulties when obtaining these vouchers, such as those who are living in another house from the one stated on their National Registration Identity Card, those living in shelters and those who face strained familial ties.

To ameliorate this, one suggestion would be to expand the pre-existing CHAS card scheme to effectively cover meal discounts to residents. Aside from providing some relief to the cardholder’s medical bills, this scheme is already being used in supermarkets, such as FairPrice, to provide discounts to cardholders.

Similarly, cardholders who present their CHAS card at a participating hawker would be able to receive a discount on their food. Whether it is blue, orange or green, the quantum of discount would then correspond to these different levels. Importantly, the cost of these discounts should not be imposed on the hawkers, but on the Government instead. Rather than subsidise high net worth individuals or millionaires who, like low-income households, all receive CDC Vouchers, the subsidy would be better directed to those who need them the most.

Such a move would help to minimise the administrative and operational costs in providing affordable meals by tapping on the infrastructure and systems of a pre-existing scheme. Meanwhile, it would help to improve access to those who experience difficulties in obtaining and redeeming their CDC Vouchers.

By enhancing governmental support to ensure affordable meals whilst securing the livelihoods of our hawkers, younger players could come in and rejuvenate the hawker scene, whilst bucking the trend of a rising number of veteran hawkers opting to call it quits and retire.

Another means for hawkers to broaden their reach is by listing their business on food delivery platforms such as Foodpanda, GrabFood and Deliveroo. Such platforms have also provided many of our residents, tired after a long day at work, easy access to tasty and delectable food right at their doorstep. This is especially prevalent in estates such as Sengkang, where many residents have turned to food delivery platforms due to the lack of coffee shops and hawker centres in the area. However, the hefty platform fees incurred by merchants on food delivery platforms have resulted in them either increasing their menu prices accordingly or opting to absorb it into their menu prices, which results in a decrease in profits.

In a PQ filed in 2021, Minister for Trade and Industry Mr Gan Kim Yong outlined that the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) will continue to monitor the food delivery sector for any anti-competitive practices. A 2020 Zaobao article reports that the platform fees charged by the trio of GrabFood, Foodpanda and Deliveroo – with market shares of 56%, 35% and 8% respectively as of 2022 – hover at around 30% of the menu price. I believe this remains the case today.

Instead of adopting a heavy-handed approach to managing hawkers and the prices they charge, perhaps the food delivery platforms, who are in a financially stronger position, could be the ones subject to greater oversight by the Government instead, especially with regard to the platform fees, which are hefty relative to food value.

Fee transparency is a key measure to ensure that competition can truly yield a fair platform fee for all hawkers and F&B operators and level the playing field between sole-proprietor hawkers and large restaurant chains in dealing with these delivery platforms. Such a measure also helps customers understand the true costs of delivery and protect hawkers from hidden fees and charges.

While I appreciate the CCCS had issued interim measures directions during the possible acquisition by Grab of Delivery Hero's business in Singapore, which did not ultimately materialise eventually, would the Government consider such measures to help ameliorate the cost borne by merchants for their presence on such platforms?

Certainly, with greater oversight of the food delivery business, food establishments, especially our hawkers, could be provided with another means to grow their business and thrive, while providing consumers with another affordable dining option.

Finally, Mr Speaker, I want to make the point that the Government must make revitalisation of the hawker industry a policy goal. When I say "revitalisation", I mean it literally in that there is a decline that needs to be reversed. Too many indicators suggest that the industry is in trouble, not just financially as I have mentioned earlier, but also culturally. For instance, the median age of hawkers was said to be 60 years old in 2019. The Government has not, to my understanding, published any updated data on this since, but I do not think the number has changed significantly. This means that half of Singapore's hawkers are at most three years away from the current age of retirement.

This retirement of a whole generation of hawkers is also evident in the disappearance of certain Singaporean dishes. Kueh tutu, appam, satay bee hoon and Fujian oyster cakes are increasingly rare and almost unheard of in new hawker centres. Food historian Khir Johari, in his book "The Food of Singapore Malays", talks about dishes that have already disappeared, such as mee maidin and rujak su'un. Just as critically, he notes how corners are cut and old recipes are disregarded in Singaporean food culture.

We need to recognise that the Hawkers' Development Programme and Hawkers Succession Scheme do not work. I do not know of any other way to describe this, but we need to go back to the drawing board and examine the reasons for this and re-model the existing schemes which are no longer fit for purpose.

In response to my PQs, since the launch of the Hawkers' Development Programme to much fanfare, 566 aspiring hawkers have enrolled, 120 completed their apprenticeship and an even smaller number of 29 have started their business and a mere 16 of them remain in operation. Of the Hawkers Succession Scheme, since its launch on 1 January 2022, a grand total of seven veteran hawkers have signed up and of these only two have completed the transfer of their stalls to their successors.

While the role of hawker food in our economy may not change so quickly because the demand for low-cost food is always there, its role in our culture is undisputed. We must make sure we protect it for our future generations. In 2020, UNESCO decided to inscribe our hawker culture on its list of Intangible Cultural Heritage. In our sub mission, it was highlighted several times that efforts are being made to pass on culinary practices to family members or apprentices, for instance through apprenticeship programmes.

One suggestion, I hope the Government will seriously consider, is for its programmes to be consolidated under a single, independent hawker academy. This was a suggestion mentioned in a related Adjournment Motion by my former colleague, Mr Leon Perera, in 2021. Such a focal point for the hawker trade could provide more tailored support for hawkers, as well as streamline the role of the Government in its support for the hawker ecosystem. After all, the culinary and entrepreneurial skills of a hawker are not learnt the way one would learn a more academic subject.

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

In Sengkang Grand Mall, for example, Buangkok Hawker Centre is, as the name suggests, a hawker centre but for any other CapitaLand mall, this would be a food court and subject to a different set of rules. "What's in a name?", one might ask. Perhaps a middle-ground approach, allowing hawkers above the age of 60 to employ one foreign work pass holder, at most per stall, should be studied.

I recognise that the Government has stated in its reply to a PQ that it will "allow hawkers to hire LTVP or LTVP+ holders with Letters of Consent (LOC) or Pre-approved LOCs to work as their stall assistants. This policy will be effective from 1 Jan 2025". However, I wonder how effective this would be, given that the LTVP is not intended for long-term employment purposes at all and we are looking at, potentially, a limited pool of workers. Has the MSE quantified the impact of this move? As stated on the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) website, the LTVP is for common-law spouses, step-children or handicapped children of an eligible Employment Pass or S Pass holders and parents of those earning over $12,000.

The move to allow the hiring of work pass holders would benefit hawkers who find it difficult to open their stall every day at full hours, and these are also likely the hawkers who have been toiling in the most challenging of conditions day and night for decades and many are likely to be one of our most loved hawker stalls with recipes that have withstood the test of time in a challenging F&B industry. After all, many restaurants, coffee shops and food courts offering Singaporean cuisine rely partly on foreign labour to meet manpower needs.

To conclude, Mr Speaker, I hope the Government can take proactive and concrete steps to address the business costs for hawkers, address the cost of living for Singaporeans and lastly, to revitalise the industry we Singaporeans love the most – our hawkers.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, hawker food is now a critical source for most Singaporean's daily meals, especially, for families who do not often have home-cooked meals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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