Response to Motion on Hawker Culture - Dr Koh Poh Koon
Response to Motion on Hawker Culture by Dr Koh Poh Koon, Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment
1 Mr Speaker, our hawker centres are an integral part of Singaporeans’ daily lives and our national identity.
2 They are vibrant melting pots of diverse and affordable local food that tell stories of Singapore – how different cultures interweave into a unique heritage of who we are as a people.
3 They are community dining rooms, where Singaporeans from all walks of life gather, socialise and interact over good food in an informal setting.
4 Hawker centres are special and quite different from Food Courts and restaurants. Our hawker centres are special because of the hawkers that make them come to life. They are our community kitchens where hawkers thrive as masters of their craft to serve comfort food beloved by Singaporeans and famous worldwide.
5 These hawkers often specialise in specific heritage dishes such as Hainanese chicken rice, Nasi Lemak, Nyonya Laksa or Roti Prata. Our hawkers work long hours, often more than 14 hours a day especially on weekends and public holidays to serve us our comfort food. Many have dedicated their lives to perfecting specific dishes, often passing down skills, recipes and cultural traditions from one generation to the next.
6 Each dish is unique to a particular hawker stall because it is infused with the special recipe and the master touch of the hawker. The flavor of Char Kway Teow from Hong Lim Park Hawker Centre is different from the one at Zion Riverside Food Centre and I like both of them. They are my favorites and they each have their own hardcore supporters. Like many of you, I go to different hawker centres to savor the authentic differences of the same dish. Each hawker centre has its own character and a different mix of food choices.
7 This is why we all have our own choice of favorite hawker dishes and hawker centres and often debate endlessly on which hawker centre has the best chicken rice and where the best Nasi Lemak can be found.
8 While some hawkers have done well and opened stalls in other hawker centres, and some have even ventured out into the restaurant space, the vast majority of stalls at our hawker centres are generally run by stallholders themselves, preparing each dish meticulously with their unique touches as it is ordered and retaining its individuality, unlike a franchise. I think we can all agree that if our hawker centres are replaced by franchises, the texture and flavour of our hawker centres will be quite different.
9 Hawker centres are such a unique and central part of our national identity that in December 2020, Hawker Culture in Singapore was inscribed onto the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.
10 I think Singaporeans and Members across both sides of the aisle will agree, that this unique Singaporean institution must be nurtured, supported, and protected, to ensure that our hawker centres and hawkers can thrive for generations to come. Some of our hawker heroes are gathered at the Gallery today – I would like to acknowledge their presence and thank them for coming down today even as we discuss this important issue late into the evening.
Principles Behind Our Policies
11 To keep this unique character of our hawker centres, our hawker policy will need to reflect three fundamental objectives and principles: to ensure that hawker centres remain our community dining room, providing Singaporeans with affordable food options; to ensure hawkers have a decent livelihood and so ensure that there is long-term sustainability of the hawker trade; and to preserve our unique local hawker culture and identity that is unique here.
12 These principles apply regardless of how we run our hawker centres – whether managed by NEA, or by operators under our newer Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centre (SEHC) model. I will address the different operating models later in my speech.
Tension Between Keeping Food Affordable; Ensuring Hawkers Earn a Fair Income; Safeguarding Local Identity of Hawker Culture
13 I listened to Mr Leong Mun Wai’s speech and that of other Members today. I think no one will disagree with these objectives. Each of them is important. But in trying to achieve all 3 objectives at the same time, we must recognise that there are inherent tensions that sometimes pull in opposite directions.
14 For instance, addressing consumers’ desire for lower food prices can inadvertently run counter to our wish to support our hawkers in making a decent living. Without a decent income, it will be difficult to attract young Singaporeans who have many other career options to enter this trade. Similarly, allowing more foreigners to work in our hawker centres may alleviate cost and manpower concerns for our hawkers, but it could dilute our local hawker culture and identity and change the feel and nature of our hawker centres. As such, there is a need to strike a balance between the interests of all parties.
15 Singaporeans face cost-of-living pressures on many fronts, especially in recent years due to global inflation. Global food prices have been volatile in recent years due to supply chain disruptions resulting from climate change and geopolitical events. Several members have said so as well. We feel this impact keenly because Singapore imports over 90% of our food.
16 Singaporeans are understandably concerned about how much they pay for food at our hawker centres. Hawkers, like all of us, also feel these pressures, as the cost of ingredients form a large part of their operating cost, as we have heard from some of the speakers earlier as well.
17 In pricing their food, many hawkers struggle between keeping food affordable for their loyal customers while having to raise prices to cover the increases in ingredient and manpower costs. This is a struggle that many of us in the House can empathise with.
18 I know that a good number of hawkers have kept their food prices unchanged over the years. One of our hawkers, Mr Melvin Chew who runs Jin Ji Teochew Braised Duck and Kway Chap at Chinatown Complex Market and Food Centre, shared with me recently that he had maintained his food prices for over twenty years since the year 2000 to offer $3 meals to customers. While he had previously considered raising prices, I understand he decided to maintain his $3 meals to benefit the older folks staying in the area. It was only after the pandemic that he raised prices to $4 to cope with the rising business costs.
19 Another example is Mr Macheal s/o Aumeer Ali. Macheal sells wanton noodles at Tanglin Halt Market, and maintained his prices at $3.50 over 5 years to serve the seniors from Tanglin Halt Estate who form most of his clientele. Only in late-2023 did he increase prices to $4, due to rising costs over the years.
20 It is not easy for hawkers to earn a fair living. Our hawkers are generally mindful of the profile of the customers they serve and they try their best to hold off any price increases. But hawkers need to be able to price their food realistically and adjust them from time to time.
21 I echo the anecdote that Mr Edward Chia shared in his speech, about Mr Zuhairi who runs Project Penyek at Senja Hawker Centre. The worries shared by Mr Zuhairi about the rising cost of just one ingredient, chilli, as well as ingredient wastage when customers prefer certain chicken parts over others, may sound trivial to us. But these are the cost components that have a direct impact on a hawker’s earnings, which are not high to begin with.
22 Absorbing price increases of ingredients would effectively mean a pay cut for a hawker, on top of the already slim profit margins. I am sure many Singaporeans can empathise with this, even as price increases are not always easy to accept for anyone.
23 There is another dimension to this, which is that hawkers inherently face limitations to how much they can sell and earn, because they operate the stall themselves.
24 Many earn less than $1 per meal that is served. But let’s take for example, a hawker who manages to make a $1 profit per bowl of noodle. He or she will need to sell 200 portions a day for 6 days a week, in order to earn the $5,000 median income of an average Singaporean. Most do not sell as many meals or earn as much per meal. As Mr Edward Chia’s example has highlighted, many hawkers barely make a 30-cents or 40-cents margin per meal they sell.
25 Over the years, the income of a typical hawker has remained lower than the average Singaporean and corresponds to around the second lowest income decile (i.e., the lowest 20%) in 2022.
26 Like everyone, our hawkers need an income that is sustainable over time. This has implications for the sustainability of the hawker trade. Today, the median age of our hawkers is 60 years old. As our ageing hawkers gradually retire, we will need new blood to sustain the hawker trade. At present, fortunately nearly all of our cooked food stalls are occupied. But if hawkers cannot make a decent livelihood, the hawker trade would become much less attractive to our younger generation who have many more career options.
27 Another tension arises as we try to help hawkers manage their manpower costs while we seek to preserve the “local” identity of our hawker culture and heritage.
28 Our policy of only allowing Singaporeans and PRs to be stallholders at hawker centres serves to safeguard this precious aspect of our Singaporean identity. I recognise that our hawkers face the practical challenge of hiring non-locals to ease manpower constraints. But a full liberalisation for foreign manpower may alter the nature of our hawker centres significantly. So these are competing tensions and there are unfortunately no easy solutions. Our recent moves seek to strike a careful balance, by allowing more LTVP/LTVP+ holders – who have nexus and ties to Singaporean families – to be stall assistants would hopefully help in some way.
Social Compact Between Government; Local Community and Private Sector; and Consumers
29 The Government fully acknowledges the impact of global inflation on the affordability of hawker food and the livelihoods of hawkers. We know the difficult operating environment and challenges our hawkers face, as well as Singaporeans’ desire for affordable hawker food. These are difficult tensions to balance. And there is no simple solution or easy fix.
30 We agree with Mr Leong that the Government has a role to play in supporting our hawkers. That is what the Government has been doing.
31 For decades now, since we gathered itinerant street hawkers into our hawker centres, and, through our policies, sought to provide hawkers with a conducive operating environment.
32 And as we restarted building hawker centres from 2011, we set out to better address the needs of Singaporeans.
33 In so doing, we also set out with a forward-looking mindset to test and explore new models that would allow us to safeguard hawker livelihoods and consumers’ needs, while keeping our hawker centre landscape responsive to an evolving operating context. I will explain more about the SEHC model later.
34 We need to find a way as a society to keep hawker fare affordable, while ensuring that hawkers can earn a fair living. Underpinning this solution must be a strong social compact that brings all stakeholders together:
35 The Government foots the cost of building hawker centres and sets policies to support our hawkers and provide them with a conducive operating environment, to ensure that they are able to provide Singaporeans with affordable food at our hawker centres.
36 The local community and private sector has a role in driving ground-up initiatives to support both hawkers and patrons;
37 Consumers can support our hawkers by patronising them and being prepared to pay a fair price for hawker food to uplift the livelihoods of our hawkers.
Providing Conducive Operating Environment for Our Hawkers
38 The Government has implemented policies to support our hawkers by providing a conducive operating environment. We review these policies regularly to ensure that they are aligned with operating realities on the ground, and for hawker centres to serve the needs of both hawkers and consumers.
39 We recognise the cost pressures that hawkers face. According to an NEA survey, on average in 2023, cost of food ingredients accounts for nearly 60% of the operating cost. Manpower cost comes in second at 20%. Rental made up less than 10% of operating costs in hawker centres.
40 Mr Leong also acknowledged that rent is not a major cost component in his speech earlier.
41 While Government does not regulate hawker food prices, NEA has measures in place to provide a conducive operating environment for hawkers.
Manpower & Productivity
42 First, on manpower costs, we have been paying close attention to two aspects: improving access to manpower and improving hawkers’ productivity.
Improving Access to Manpower & Addressing Calls to Further Loosen Manpower Policies
43 The income of hawkers is very much dependent on how many meals they can serve a day, especially during peak hours. There is only so much that one pair of hands can do.
44 We understand hawkers’ challenges in hiring stall assistants. This is something we need to balance with safeguarding the local identity of our hawker culture. We do so by ensuring that being a stallholder at NEA-managed hawker centres remains reserved for Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents. In doing so, we also ensure low barriers to entry for Singaporeans who wish to enter the F&B business through the hawker trade.
45 In Mr Leong Mun Wai and Mr Louis Chua’s speech speech earlier, they suggested allowing one work permit holder to work as stall assistants. Their suggestion is not inconceivable, actually, and there are real needs that the hawkers face in sourcing for manpower. But there are differences between hawker centres and other food establishments. Private coffee shops and F&B establishments operate like SMEs, so they are subjected to the usual quota system that MOM applies to all operating businesses here in Singapore.
46 Our hawker centres on the other hand are an integral part of our cultural heritage and their unique local nature is something we want to preserve. Which is why we thought very carefully on making such moves. That is why we calibrate any relaxation on restrictions on who can work at our hawker centres very carefully.
47 As I said earlier, full liberalisation of our hawker centres would significantly alter the makeup and feel of these hawker centres. There is really no science to this question. It’s really about what we are prepared to accept as a society. Are we prepared to accept that the hawker centre we are familiar with changes in nature to something quite different. This is something that will have to evolve over time.
48 Members may recall that in the early 2010s, there was significant concern among Singaporeans about seeing more foreigners working in hawker centres and this very issue was raised in this house.
49 So, we need to strike a balance. As some Singaporeans may still not be able to accept a significant alteration in the makeup of hawker centres, we will adjust and evolve our policies to take these views into account.
50 Having said that, we do want to help ease some of the manpower challenges hawkers face. This is why at Parliament last month, I had announced that starting from 1 January 2025, NEA will allow hawkers to hire Long Term Visit Pass (LTVP) or LTVP+ holders with Letter of Consent (LOC) or Pre-approved LOC to work as their stall assistants at NEA-managed hawker centres and NEA-appointed operators, regardless of family ties.
51 Prior to this, stallholders could only appoint such LTVP or LTVP+ holders to work as their stall assistants if they had a spousal relationship, and even then, on a case-by-case basis. Now, hawkers can hire from an expanded pool of these potential stall assistants, who are already part of a Singapore family nexus.
52 This is one example of how we continually review and adjust our policies to adjust to changing circumstances.
Enhancing Hawkers’ Productivity
53 But the reality is that each additional headcount is an added cost to our hawkers. So, a more sustainable approach to manpower is to make every person more productive. Therefore, NEA has implemented measures to support hawkers in enhancing their productivity, which can help lighten the pressures of their manpower constraints.
54 At the centre level, the Productive Hawker Centres (PHC) programme provides up to 70%-tiered subsidy for centres to adopt centralised dishwashing, for up to 4 years.
55 At the individual stall level, the Hawkers’ Productivity Grant (HPG) provides 80% co-funding for hawkers to purchase kitchen automation equipment and digital solutions such as queue management systems.
Raw Materials
56 A key business cost hawkers deal with is raw materials. Ms Hazel Poa raised a suggestion on centralised procurement to moderate such costs. This is not a new suggestion, I believe in an earlier Parliamentary setting, Mr Alvin Yong did raise one of these suggestions in his Parliamentary Question.
57 This centralised procurement idea is already present at some SEHCs, where operators have tapped on their network in the F&B and food supply sectors to offer bulk purchasing services. With such services, their stallholders have the option to secure preferential rates for raw ingredients.
58 But from our experience, there are limitations. So far, the uptake among stallholders has not been widespread as most already have established relationships with their existing suppliers, or are quite particular about the source and quality of their ingredients.
59 Remember what I said earlier about unique nature of our hawker centres. Each stall is run by the hawkers themselves with unique recipe, special touches, to differentiate themselves from their competitors. Nonetheless, we will continue to support such initiatives where it benefits our hawkers.
Stall Rent
60 Apart from manpower, the Government has also implemented measures to ensure reasonable rent for hawkers, and to also address concerns on rent. By keeping rent affordable, we can help make the cost of doing business lower for hawkers, even if it’s not by a large percentage because rent is less than 10% of their operating costs.
61 Generally, stall rentals at all hawker centres are lower than nearby eating establishments, such as coffee shops, food courts and small eateries.
62 For majority of cooked food stallholders in our hawker centres, median rent is around $1,250 per month and has remained relatively stable for the past 10 years. This has been the case even while overall prices have continued to rise over the decade. This also means therefore that rent is now a smaller component of their costs compared to 10 years ago.
63 The Government also extends generous subsidies to a segment of our pioneer hawkers, who make up around 30% of cooked food stallholders. For them, rent is heavily subsidised at about $300 per month. This can be transferred to the immediate family members of the pioneer hawkers, at the same low rent.
Addressing Calls to Review Tender Stall Allocation and Rental System at NEA-Managed Hawker Centres
64 Let me now touch on rent at NEA hawker centres. The Government builds hawker centres and does not use rent for cost recovery. Let me say that again, the Government builds hawker centres and does not use the rent for cost recovery. The rents are in fact determined by what the tenderer bids for and can be as low as $1.
65 The PSP and Mr Louis Chua raised the issue of rent and the bidding system for stall rentals. Our policy is for non-subsidised stalls in NEA-managed hawker centres to be allocated via a tender system, in which stalls are tendered to the highest bidder, who pays the bid price for the first tenancy period of three years.
66 This process is open, transparent and straightforward for prospective hawkers to understand. It is not a complicated system.
67 A bidding system enables market mechanisms to work at hawker centres. The process encourages prospective hawkers that are committed and serious to come forward and submit a bid. Before doing so, prospective hawkers would have to take into account operating realities and business costs, and decide on what kind of food they wish to sell. They know that what they bid will be what they have to pay.
68 Once a stall is open, consumers will decide. The quality and price of food will determine how well the stall will fare and how sustainable the stall will be.
69 This market mechanism has helped to shape our current hawker centre landscape. It is responsive to consumers’ demands and changing expectations for hawker food, and fair for both hawkers and consumers. Those who can offer tasty meals that consumers feel are value for money will continue to do well, while those who are priced too high and do not meet consumer’s taste expectations will eventually exit.
70 This works in tandem with other measures by the Government to moderate hawker stall rents, which we regularly review and improve.
71 Today, there is no reserve rent or minimum bid price. This enables bidders to obtain stalls at low rental rates. In fact, over 300 stalls were obtained at bids below $100 over the last 3 years – a few in 2023 and 2024 won bids with rent as low as $1! It is not a myth, there are stalls that are going at $1 bid price.
72 We saw that subletting of stalls led to higher rents in the past. So, we moved in 2012 to disallow such subletting.
73 After the first tenancy period of 3 years, rental is adjusted towards the assessed market rent (AMR). We recently reviewed and changed this policy, to stagger the downward adjustment of tendered rent over a longer period over two tenancy renewals instead of one. This will also discourage prospective hawkers from putting in excessively high tender bids.
74 It is not a perfect system but collectively, our rental policies at NEA-managed hawker centres have served us well. Occupancy rates for cooked food stalls have remained high, averaging above 95%. In 2023, the median successful tender price for cooked food stalls was about $1,800, and about 1 in 5 cooked food stalls were awarded at tender prices at or below $500. 44% of bidders were able to secure their stalls at below AMR. So our system has helped to keep rental prices reasonable, in fact a good number below the AMR.
75 Stall demand remains healthy. Vacant cooked food stalls put up for tender received an average of 7.2 bids per stall, and are successfully re-tendered within three to six months.
76 Overall, the tender system is working. We have made recent changes and expect to see some positive impact. And we will continue to review, taking in suggestions and feedback, to continue improving the system.
77 There are many views on the current price tender system model and what might be a better model to replace it. Even the PSP itself has different views and proposed different options as well. For example, Mr Leong Mun Wai suggested one method based on percentage of Gross Turnover with a base rent. But this would require a Point-of-Sale system in every store to track what the actual takings are. Ms Hazel Poa also proposed abandoning the tender system and change to a balloting one. She also suggested a fixed rent model as well.
78 As Mr Keith Chia noted, there really will not be a perfect system, but we will keep trying.
79 We also started the price-quality method at our SEHCs where rent is pre-determined and stalls are awarded by the operators. So we are open to trying different methods and see what works best.
80 Let me address Ms Hazel Poa’s suggestion to abandon the tender system and use a balloting system. Again this is not a new suggestion, I remember Mr Melvin Yong asking in a Parliamentary Question before.
81 Let me explain that while balloting could provide an equal chance to all to obtain a stall at an upfront fixed rate, what balloting could also do is to encourage frivolous applications and excess demand for stalls, especially at popular locations. This may not be fair to prospective tenderers with genuine intent to set up a new stall as they see their chances dwindle, as more people come in to crowd that space for a limited number of stalls. Such a situation would not benefit patrons as well.
82 Ms Poa also suggested a fixed rent model to keep rental costs under control. But the question we must ask is what price will we use to pre-determine the rent? Let us say we use the AMR which is professionally determined by valuers. In that case all prospective hawkers will end up paying this price. But under today’s system, the tendered rent for about 44% of stalls is actually below the AMR (based on 2023 data).
83 In fact as I said earlier, 20% pay less than $500, so this would definitely help with their business costs. Under a fixed rent model, close to half of tenderers would see their rent much higher than it is today.
84 Mr Louis Chua also proposes a rental cap. I thought it is useful for us to understand how a rental cap could distort the market dynamics. If we set any cap threshold, we give bidders assurance that the bids would not go beyond a maximum ceiling. That is the upside of a rental cap. However in doing so, this would encourage bidders to bid more competitively towards that threshold in order to outprice the competition to secure the store. So that could well mean the end of the $1 rental bid stalls that we have in the system today. This could in turn lead to overall bid prices trending higher and the whole allocation will no longer be fair and meaningful, even at less popular centres. The rental cap may also have an unintended consequence by inadvertently setting a price point that drives lower rentals upwards towards the cap, as I explained.
85 Mr Louis Chua also proposes that the Government take back control of all hawker centres. I thank him for his confidence in the Government and the way we manage our hawker centres. And in fact, today the Government already oversees all hawker centres, and we have been able to achieve reasonable rent and conducive environment for hawkers through our policies while ensuring accessible and affordable food options. The Government has been responding to evolving needs and at different time points, we have tried different management models in order to bring benefit to Singaporeans.
86 While our system is not perfect, we have worked in partnership with our hawkers and operators to address these, we will continue to listen and engage and fine tune what needs to be improved. I must also say that we should allow some space for the private sector to thrive in this space so there is a diversity of option for both hawkers and consumers. Some hawkers eventually do venture out to other F&B spaces to scale and grow. I think we should not do it in a way that actually squeezes out the room for the private sector to be able to thrive in the scene.
87 At the end of the day, we must ensure that whatever we do is transparent, easily understood by the tenderers and will lead to better outcomes. We must make sure the “cure” we are proposing is not worse than the issue we are trying to resolve, to the detriment of the hawkers and consumers.
88 As Mr Leong has also noted, rent is not really the major cost factor. What hawkers need is customer footfall and fair pricing so they have decent margin and income on the goods that they sell. Because even if the rent is free, no footfall equals no income. I think we have to be quite clear that rent, being a small component, is not going to be the one that will make our hawkers fare better.
89 We continue to monitor the trends closely, as well as the attention that hawker stall rent has attracted recently. A small percentage of bids can be quite high, especially at popular hawker centres. For example, the recent bid for a cooked food stall at Marine Parade Central Food Centre which exceeded $10,000.
90 Now I must say that this outlier bid is the only one at the level of $10,000 in the last five years. Out of our 7,000 cooked food stalls only 4% have rent today that is above the median AMR of $1,250.
91 This means these people are still in the first tenancy term because at the end of the third year, this 4% that is above the AMR on today’s policy will revert towards the AMR. We have to be quite careful not to abandon a system that has actually worked quite well and benefited many hawkers just because of a small number of outliers.
92 There may be situations where prospective tenderers put in overly high bids upfront to secure their preferred stall expecting that their rent will be adjusted downwards to AMR after the first three years. Such bids may not be realistic and may distort prices over time if they proliferate. While the numbers are small today, other tenderers could be disadvantaged from entering the hawker trade. We want to nip this in the bud and discourage such extraordinarily high bids.
93 I announced last week that we will implement two measures, to encourage more realistic bidding behaviour that better consider actual market conditions.
94 First, and quite importantly, we will make available more information and online business cost estimation tools. We are introducing this to assist and encourage tenderers to make a more informed decision and to bid realistically, when they submit a tender bid for a hawker stall. We are working on the details, which we plan to make public early next year.
95 However, some tenderers may still choose to submit excessively high bids. This is where our second measure comes in: we will stagger downward adjustment of tendered rent over a longer period, over two tenancy renewals instead of one. Doing so serves to deter prospective hawkers from submitting unrealistic bids. After the initial three years, stall rental will be adjusted to 50% of the difference between the bid price and AMR when tenancy is renewed. This rental rate will be in place for three more years before fully adjusting to AMR from the 7th year onwards.
96 This new policy takes effect from NEA’s ongoing tender exercise this month. I want to reassure existing stallholders that you will not be affected.
97 Of course, we recognise this is not a cure-all, and tenderers could still submit high bids, if they assess that they have a viable business model with that bid.
98 Nonetheless, we hope that these changes will work hand in hand to encourage prospective hawkers to bid in a more considered and realistic manner going forward. We will continue to monitor the tender bidding behaviours closely, and review our tenancy policies from time to time to ensure that they continue to be relevant.
SEHCs
99 I would now like to turn to the issue of operating models. Before I do so, allow me to reiterate that regardless of how we manage our hawker centres – whether it is by NEA, or by operators appointed under our SEHC model, our fundamental principles remain the same. Hawkers and consumers remain at the heart of our policies.
100 There have been many comments about the SEHC model by Members today. Let me start by setting the context of why we first adopted the Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centre (SEHC) model.
101 In 2011, when we restarted building hawker centres, this was with Singaporeans in mind – to meet the community’s rising needs for access to a variety of food options at affordable prices, especially in areas under-served with food and beverage (F&B) options.
102 Building hawker centres alone was not enough. We also needed to set up our new centres for success. This meant exploring new models and being open to different approaches, that would allow us to achieve our objectives to safeguard hawker livelihoods and consumers’ needs, while adapting to an evolving operating context far different from when we first started building hawker centres to resettle the street hawkers.
103 Foremost on our minds was to ensure that our new centres would be vibrant. Vibrancy is important not just to hawkers but to consumers as well. There was a time when residents were unhappy that hawker centres were not opening long enough to serve their dining needs. In fact, this issue was raised before and was debated in Parliament, back in the 2000s. In recent years, we have also received feedback from residents and the community about operating hours for hawker centres and the need to ensure they are vibrant.
104 In short, managing hawker centres can be a complex undertaking. Hawker centres need to be vibrant with good visitorship and footfall; they need to provide a diverse food mix that responds to the evolving needs of changing demographics; and be adaptable, and set up with the necessary conditions to be viable and sustainable for the long-term. All these require the right business acumens to put together. Government agencies do not have the abilities or instincts to operate businesses.
105 This is the context for developing the SEHC model. We assessed the SEHC model to have various benefits.
106 First, SEHC operators possess industry knowledge and experience. They can leverage their expertise in F&B and stall management to ensure the vibrancy of new centres. Indeed, many have done so by developing a variety of localised programmes, including initiatives tailored to the community to drive visitorship, and incubation programmes to provide business advice and support to aspiring hawkers.
107 Second, SEHC operators can leverage their F&B networks to curate food mix and support stallholders to fine-tune their menu, such as through food tastings. This supports both hawkers and consumers – allowing the hawker centres to feature food that meet patrons’ expectations, which in turn supports hawkers’ businesses.
108 Third, SEHC operators can introduce new and innovative practices, to support stallholders in navigating changing operating contexts and industry developments, such as onboarding onto digital and online ordering platforms. This helps our hawker centres evolve and keep up with trends.
109 Good curation and visitorship are important ingredients for a vibrant hawker centre. These allow hawkers to thrive and earn a fair livelihood. In turn, when hawkers find it viable to operate stalls for longer hours, a centre can better meet the dining needs of the residents and community. These are the objectives that had to be met – and we believe can be met – by the SEHC management model.
110 As with any models, there will be operational issues that we need to continuously calibrate and make adjustments from time to time. We will continue to engage SEHC operators and hawkers to make changes where necessary.
111 The SEHC model was put in place in 2011. Today, 14 out of our 121 hawker centres are managed by SEHC operators appointed by NEA.
112 In developing this model, we sought to strike a balance between ensuring patrons’ needs for hawker centres are met, including access to affordable food options and meals across the day; and hawkers’ needs for a conducive operating environment to make a reasonable livelihood.
113 The SEHC operator pays assessed market rent, but also bids for a management fee from the Government to operate the centre as part of the tender. So, the cost of operating the SEHC is partially borne by the Government.
114 We have safeguards in place to ensure that operators do not profiteer, and are expected to work closely with NEA as well as hawkers, to consider the interests and needs of both hawkers and residents.
115 In Mr Leong Mun Wai’s speech earlier, he claimed that the operator for Jurong West Hawker Centre paid $4.8 million to the Government to manage the hawker centre. This is incorrect, what the government does is pay a management fee to operators to run a hawker centre. This is a significant cost borne by government over time.
116 As we heard from Mr Ang Wei Ng earlier when he shared about the Jurong West Hawker Centre. The hawkers who are there pay $1000+ in rental which is quite similar to what hawkers in NEA-managed HCs pay.
117 This kind of management model is not a business environment for hawkers that you would find in other cities. Mr Leong gave the example of New York City. I believe Mr KF Seetoh will be familiar with the high rental and labour costs that are faced by hawkers given his experience with Urban Hawker in New York as well. Mr Edward Chia also shared earlier that some hawkers that are operating in New York face high rental costs, operating costs, ingredient costs, manpower costs, and some of them have actually exited as well.
118 This is an illustration of how through our investment in hawker centres, through our various policies, we have tried to keep costs low and manageable for hawkers here so they can continue to thrive.
119 Let me talk about rent and operating costs in the SEHC model.
120 When submitting tender proposals, prospective SEHC operators must also include their proposed stall rentals and other operating costs charged to stallholders. To provide stability for stallholders, upon award of the tender, operators are not allowed to vary hawkers’ rent and other operating charges over the tenancy term, and must keep costs transparent.
121 Furthermore, under NEA’s Staggered Rent Scheme, operators are required to implement lower rentals in the first two years of the centres’ operations at 80% and 90% of stall rent respectively. This helps new stallholders coming into this new centre manage operating costs as they build their clientele, while the centre gradually establishes itself.
122 I would like to address the specific concerns raised by Mr Leong Mun Wai about tenancy agreements. Such conditions are part of the Tenancy Agreements between the SEHC operators and the stallholders. SEHC operators put in place the necessary conditions to account for the needs of the community.
123 For example, operating hours specify that stallholders must open their stalls for a specific number of days and hours. This serves to ensure that centres would be vibrant and have sufficient stalls in operation to serve meals for residents throughout the day.
124 Nonetheless, conditions are also in place to take care of the well-being of our hawkers. NEA provided guidelines on the terms of such Tenancy Agreements, including on termination clauses, liquidated damages clauses, and operating hours.
125 For instance, on operating hours, stallholders are not required to work more than five days a week or 8 hours a day. These are guidelines that operators need to comply with, before using their Tenancy Agreements with stallholders. Operators are also required to explain the Tenancy Agreement to stallholders in simple terms for the stallholders’ understanding, before they sign it.
126 Once again, there is a fine balance needed to look after the interests of both our hawkers and our community, for whom hawker centres are built for.
127 In accordance with SEHCs’ agreement with NEA, operators must plough back at least 50% of any surpluses into programmes that benefit the hawker centres and/or their stallholders. SEHC operators may generate operating surpluses in some years and incur losses in other years. But when surpluses are available, operators have run initiatives to raise footfall and business levels to benefit stallholders, such as providing shuttle bus services at Yishun Park Hawker Centre and organising festive events at Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre. Some operators have also tapped on their surpluses to help the stallholders reduce their operating costs, such as for cleaning.
128 Also, SEHC operators, as part of their tender proposals, must propose ways to ensure affordable food options are available. It is for the operators to set the price, not for NEA to dictate the price. So far operators have committed that all stalls in their centres will provide at least one value meal option. This is not an attempt to force hawkers to sell all of their dishes at low prices. Instead, the intent is for operators to work with hawkers to offer a range of food offerings at different price points.
129 This provides more choices for patrons if they want or need it, and is especially intended to support those with lower-dincome. However, value meals only account for around 5% to 20% of meals sold in SEHCs, so it is not the bulk of the revenue source of hawkers at SEHCs. Hawkers still retain flexibility to offer other food items and sell them at appropriate prices, so that they can continue to earn an overall fair living.
130 Hawkers are not expected to make a loss selling value meals. SEHC operators can propose to revise the price of such value meals options, which NEA will review based on the market situation and stallholders’ ability to make a fair livelihood. This has in fact been done before at Ci Yuan Hawker Centre where the price was reviewed and adjusted based on feedback from operators and hawkers.
131 NEA remains open to consider other suggestions that operators may propose, based on their viability and feasibility to ensure that sufficient affordable options are provided at the SEHCs.
132 SEHC operators must also engage hawkers through regular Hawker Feedback Group sessions. These are held at least once every quarter, where operators gather feedback and ideas from their stallholders to improve the hawker centres and hawkers’ livelihoods.
133 NEA has worked closely with hawkers, operators and other stakeholders to refine the SEHC model over the years. We will continue to listen to concerns and input, to evolve and improve the model as we go along.
Addressing Claims that the SEHC Model is Not Doing Well
134 With our efforts over the years, the SEHC model is generally working well. Our SEHCs have brought overall benefits to hawkers and patrons alike, and are well-established within their communities.
135 SEHC operators have curated food stalls in their SEHCs to ensure good quality and variety, and kept their centres open for all three meals to meet patrons’ dining needs. Average occupancy at SEHCs remains high with low stall turnover, comparable to NEA-managed centres.
136 While the termination numbers compared between SEHCs and NEA hawker centres cited by Mr Leong Mun Wai are factual, they do need to be put into context. The average annual termination rates cited for SEHCs, 8% as cited by Mr Leong, also accounted for SEHCs that are new and starting out. During this period there is some attrition and business volatility. When in steady state, stall terminations tend to stablise and are no different compared to termination rates of 3% at NEA hawker centres.
137 There continues to be high interest in applying for stalls at SEHCs, such as those recently opened at Anchorvale, Buangkok, and Woodleigh. Based on NEA’s recent surveys, over 97% of patrons and stallholders were overall satisfied with SEHCs, which is comparable to the satisfaction level at NEA-managed centres.
138 Also, SEHCs have performed better in cleanliness, centre management and placemaking activities.
139 Operating costs for stallholders at SEHCs, including rentals, remain manageable. The median stall rent at SEHCs is comparable to non-subsidised stalls at similar NEA-managed hawker centres. When comparing rental, it should not just be based on absolute rental, but one should also consider aspects such as stall size and amenities in the centre.
140 Nonetheless, we do not take all this for granted. We also recognise that some operators have done better while others have faced implementation challenges along the way, especially when they first started.
141 This is also why we renew the management of SEHCs via open tender after the incumbent operators’ final tenancy term. It is a transparent process that allows incumbents that have done well to be considered favourably, while weeding out poorer-performing operators if necessary. Such a system enables healthy competition between the SEHC operators, and motivates them to refine and improve their management models over time.
142 As we roll out the SEHC model to more new hawker centres, we will continue to monitor the implementation of the SEHC model closely, and work with hawkers and operators to ensure that our new hawker centres continue to serve the interests of patrons well and ensure the well-being of our hawkers.
Affordability of Food at Hawker Centres
143 Next, I will address the concerns raised about the affordability of food at hawker centres.
144 Today hawker centres across our island continue to provide the most affordable cooked food options for Singaporeans. That’s why we often receive requests from residents to have a hawker centre in their neighbourhoods, even when it is already well served by other F&B outlets.
145 Our key focus therefore must be to ensure a sufficient supply of hawker stalls to cater to residents in all regions.
146 We are committed to doing so and we will continue maintaining our existing hawker centres as we as we build new ones.14 new centres are currently in operation, and the locations of the other 6 centres have been announced.
Response to Calls to Control Hawker Food Prices
147 The Government does not directly regulate or control food prices across the board. Doing so would also distort the true cost of hawker food, which would in turn depress our hawkers’ earnings. This would result in an unsustainable hawker trade, discourage new hawkers from joining the trade and would eventually affect everyone if affordable hawker food becomes less available. It is not prudent in the long run, and hawkers would bear the brunt while also experiencing the same cost-of-living pressures just like everyone else.
148 We have to be careful about over-regulating across the board. Broadly speaking, market competition is an important self-regulating force for hawker food prices. We have been talking about affordable food, but “affordable” might not necessarily equate to “cheap”. They are actually two different things.
149 As I mentioned earlier in my speech, hawkers consider various factors when pricing their food, including operating costs and the need to remain competitive with other stalls. I have spoken to hawkers, a young hawker Darren Teo who shared that many of them practise “honest pricing”, in which they price their food to reflect the cost and quality of ingredients, and apply a reasonable but modest profit margin to sustain their livelihood. Hawkers know that consumers are discerning and they need to be honest with their pricing.
150 In allowing the market to function, another hawker Mr Noorman Mubarak from Nasi Lemak Ayam Taliwang, who is also here in the gallery today, said we can “let our hawkers and their customers find the right balance” of where the price point for hawker food should be. Over time, this enables a sustainable hawker centre landscape that is responsive to both hawkers’ and consumers’ needs.
Strategies to Mitigate Effects of Food Prices
151 To help Singaporeans cope with cost-of-living concerns, the Government has introduced broad-based measures such as providing Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers under the enhanced Assurance Package.
152 These vouchers can be used at participating hawker stalls, to help households defray the cost of hawker food. In turn, it also enables consumers to spend more at our hawker centres and support hawkers’ livelihood. Thus far, around $650 million of CDC vouchers disbursed have been used at participating heartland shops, including stalls across all hawker centres.
153 I am heartened to hear from Mr Edward Chia’s speech that hawkers at Senja Hawker Centre shared that these CDC vouchers have contributed directly to their revenue and brought in new customers for their businesses.
154 The Government is looking at more ways that we can support Singaporeans and hawkers, and will announce more details when ready.
Community and Private Sector Efforts to Support Hawkers and Consumers
155 I am heartened that many business and community groups are also stepping up and doing their part to help Singaporeans and hawkers.
156 In 2023, the Marine Parade Citizens’ Consultative Committee, Marine Parade Merchant’s Association and Katong Joo Chiat Business Association worked together with some hawkers in three hawker centres and coffeeshops to launch a Value Meal @ Marine Parade initiative for patrons.
157 In September 2024, the Marine Parade constituency also launched the Marine Parade Family Vouchers for eligible families to use at its neighbourhood merchants, markets and hawker centres. These are meaningful measures and ground up activities that go towards helping those in need and hawkers themselves.
158 The private sector has also introduced similar initiatives. For example, DBS’ ongoing Support Our Heartlands initiative and their earlier 5 Million Hawker Meals scheme that was shared.
159 I am deeply encouraged by these initiatives which support our hawkers and the broader community, and I hope to see many more of them as we continue to uplift and safeguard our hawker culture.
Supporting Hawker Culture and Trade
160 I agree with Mr Leong that to safeguard our hawker trade for future generations, one of our key priorities is to nurture a new generation of younger hawkers to take over the reins.
161 To attract more Singaporeans to join the hawker trade, we need to first ensure that hawkers are able to earn a fair living, work in a clean and comfortable environment, and receive the support that they require. These underpin our policies, as I have mentioned earlier.
162 NEA has been working closely with hawkers and stakeholders to attract new hawker entrants and equip them with skillsets to boost their chances of success. This includes three key programmes that NEA runs to help aspiring hawkers to kickstart their businesses—the Incubation Stall Programme (ISP), Hawkers’ Development Programme (HDP), and the Hawkers Succession Scheme (HSS).
163 Mr Leong and Mr Louis Chua proposed setting up a hawker academy to be a focal point for training youg aspiring hawkers in Singapore. In fact, we already have a similar academy in place under our current HDP. NEA and Skills Future Singapore appoints the Asian Culinary institute, under Nanyang Polytechnic, to provide training to aspiring hawkers and equip them with the necessary skills for their businesses, such as business strategy and business pricing. So that concept is already in action today.
164 We are encouraged to see aspiring hawkers enter the trade through these means, with some choosing to preserve traditional recipes while others infuse innovative ideas to modernise hawker fare. This diversity contributes to the richness and depth of our evolving hawker culture.
165 Furthermore, SEHC operators also run various incubation programmes to support their stallholders to ease into the hawker trade. After all it is in their interest to make sure the hawkers succeed in their centres.
166 For example, Fei Siong Social Enterprise Pte Ltd introduced the “Entrepreneurship” programme at Woodleigh Village Hawker Centre. The programme provides mentorship and support for young hawkerpreneurs in areas such as culinary skills, stall setup, menu creation and marketing activities. Fei Siong also provided financial assistance such as purchasing cooking equipment at interest-free instalments.
167 Collectively, the programmes by NEA and SEHC operators have helped to inject younger entrants into the hawker scene. To date, over 70 hawkers have joined the trade through these programmes, with a median age of 37.
168 We will continue to review the programme outcomes and identify other areas to better encourage and support aspiring hawkers to enter and stay in the hawker trade. We will provide more details next year.
169 Mr Leong proposed hawker centre management to be taken over by a new government agency to be called Hawker Singapore. Again, I thank him for putting his trust in the government to manage our hawker centres well. In fact, we already have a dedicated division in NEA called the Hawker Centres Group looking after this with place managers on the ground that interacts closely with hawkers. Therefore, what he is proposing is essentially a reorganistion of an existing dedicated team that is already functioning.
170 What is more important is that whatever entity that oversees the management of hawker centres should be plugged into the day-to-day concerns of individual centres and be responsive to its evolving needs. That is what our place managers do on a day-to-day basis, and our SEHC operators are also able to do this too. NEA works closely with hawkers, as well as industry associations like Federation of Merchant Associations of Singapore, and we assign place managers to each hawker centre in Singapore so that the nexus is tight.
171 I turn back now to the motion that is being debated today.
Striking a Balance in Our Social Compact
172 External circumstances such as inflation have presented challenges for our hawkers and Singaporeans alike, especially in recent years. We deeply understand these sentiments.
173 For hawkers, increases in operating costs, especially for ingredients, can mean having to absorb some of these costs, or making the difficult decision to raise prices for customers.
174 For Singaporeans, having to pay 50 cents or a dollar more for hawker meals could feel like a dent in their wallets, as prices of other daily essentials also go up.
175 As the Government, and with the support of our local community and private sector, we are doing what we can to mitigate the impact of these rising costs, as many Members have spoken about. I thank Members who have acknowledged the practical realities we operate in, and for affirming the Government’s efforts to do right by our hawkers.
176 At the heart of the debate today is how we can sustain and grow our invaluable hawker culture, so that it continues to thrive. This is something that the Government is fully committed to do. But we must recognise that there are often competing objectives, and as consumers, we all play an important role in this too.
177 Many Singaporeans are worried about the impact of global inflationary pressures on the cost of living, and understandably so. However, for hawkers to earn a fair living, they need to price food realistically.
178 While price increases are not always easy to accept, we must remember that how much a hawker can sell a bowl of rice or noodles for, is dependent on how much Singaporeans are prepared to pay.
179 Ultimately, hawkers need the support of consumers. We must form a strong social compact to ensure that our hawker culture can continue to thrive, and Singaporeans can continue to enjoy hawker fare for many more generations to come.
Closing Remarks
180 Mr Speaker, allow me to conclude. We all want our hawker centres and hawker culture to continue to thrive, but it entails a fine balancing act. Overall, the Government has taken a calibrated and long-term view in crafting our policies. We have put in place comprehensive measures that strike a careful balance between ensuring affordable food options at hawker centres and supporting hawkers with a conducive environment, while also safeguarding the long-term sustainability of the hawker trade, local hawker culture and heritage.
181 This would not have been possible without the readiness and commitment from our hawkers and hawker associations to work with the Government. I thank them for their input and partnership, which have helped us improve our policies to balance between competing objectives, and chart the best way forward for both hawkers and Singaporeans.
182 We may not always get this right the first time. With your inputs and feedback, and as circumstances change, we will review and adjust our policies. We have done so in the past. And we will continue to fine-tune and improve.
183 What’s important in all of these adjustments is that our hawkers must be able to earn a fair livelihood. This is critical for our hawker culture to thrive for a long time. Without our hawkers as torch bearers, our hawker centres will be empty, and our hawker culture will disappear.
184 And this is why I support the proposed amendment from Mr Edward Chia. I invite Members to join me in expressing support as well, because Mr Chia is right that the Government should continue its support for hawkers and hawker culture so that Singaporeans can continue to enjoy good and affordable hawker food, while ensuring hawkers can earn a fair livelihood.
185 2025 will be our 60th year as an independent country. It will also mark the 5th anniversary since the UNESCO inscription for Hawker Culture in Singapore.
186 Hawkers have always played an integral role in building our country, and hawker culture has been an important part of our national Singaporean identity.
187 As I had announced last week at the Singapore Hawkers’ Seminar and Awards, in conjunction with these milestones, the Government will be reviewing measures to further support hawkers and revitalise our Hawker Culture. We will announce more details during the Committee of Supply debates next year.
188 To members of this House and to all Singaporeans, I want to assure you that safeguarding our hawker culture remains an important priority for this Government. We are committed to work together with our hawker community and stakeholders to do so. Together, we can sustain our hawker culture to thrive for generations to come.
189 Mr Speaker Sir, in Mandarin please.
190 小贩中心是国人日常生活中不可或缺的一部分，也是新加坡的文化象征。小贩中心是新加坡文化的大熔炉，不止汇集了各种价格实惠的美食,更把体现在美食中的不同文化与传统交织在一起，形成了新加坡独特的文化遗产。小贩中心就像是个“社区饭厅”，各阶层的国人都可以在这里轻松用餐，互相交流。
191 小贩中心和食阁或餐馆不一样。小贩中心的灵魂，就是为它们注入生命力的小贩们。小贩们可以在这里发挥所长，提供深受国人喜爱和享誉全球的美食。这些小贩往往专攻特定的本地美食，如大家爱吃的海南鸡饭、椰浆饭、娘惹叻沙或印度煎饼。他们披星戴月，往往工作超过14小时，甚至在周末与公共假日也为我们提供我们爱吃的美食。他们奉献自己的一生来精通厨艺，把自己的手艺、家传的食谱和文化传统传承给下一代。每一道小贩美食都是与众不同的。例如，芳林公园熟食中心的炒粿条味道和锡安河畔熟食中心的就不一样，但两个都我都爱吃的！我也会和大家一样, 常常到不同的小贩中心品尝不同的美食。每一个小贩中心所售卖的食物选项都不一样，每一个小贩中心也有各自的红牌美食，这就是为什么我们每个人会有自己最喜欢的小贩美食，甚至有自己最喜欢的小贩中心，也会常常讨论哪个小贩中心有最好吃的鸡饭或椰浆饭。
192 有些小贩经营有道，已经在其他小贩中心开设摊位，有些甚至开设餐馆，进军餐饮业领域。但我们熟悉的小贩中心的一个特征，就是大部分的小贩摊位都是由摊主亲自经营，在我们点餐后都精心地准备每一份餐点，保留菜肴的独特风味，不像连锁店那样失去个性。
193 这就是小贩中心的独特之处，也是我们国家认同感的核心。因此，新加坡的小贩中心在2020年12月被列入联合国教科文组织的 “非物质文化遗产代表名录”。
194 我想在座的各位都会同意，我们必须维护小贩文化，小贩中心和小贩行业才能继续蓬勃发展。今天，在公众席上有好几位我们的小贩英雄出席，我要向他们的到来表示欢迎，对他们为大众的付出敬礼，也感谢他们在我们讨论这个重要的课题时前来参与。
195 要保持小贩文化的特征，我们的小贩政策必须平衡三个基本目标和原则：第一，确保小贩中心继续作为我们的“社区饭厅”，为国人提供负担得起的饮食选择；第二，保障小贩的生计和小贩行业的长期可持续性，吸引年轻一代的国人加入这个行业；以及第三，保留我们独特的本地小贩文化和特征，确保它不会变成一个被连锁经营者所取代的餐厅。
196 我相信大家都能认同这三个目标。这三个目标每一个都很重要。但要同时实现这三个目标却具有挑战。我们必须认识到它们之间其实存在着一些矛盾， 有时候会朝反方向发展。
197 例如，满足消费者对较低食物价格的需求，可能会与我们支持小贩摊主维持生计的愿望背道而驰。如果没有合理的收入，我们很难吸引到有多种职业选项的年轻国人从事小贩行业。同样的，允许更多外国人在小贩中心工作，或许能减轻小贩的成本压力和人力短缺的问题，但可能会冲淡我们的本土小贩文化和身份认同。因此，我们必须在各方的利益之间取得平衡。
198 近年来，在全球通货膨胀的大背景下，国人面对着生活费上涨的压力。气候变化和地缘政治导致供应链中断，全球粮食价格波动较大。由于新加坡进口超过90%的食品，我们深受食品价格上涨的影响。
199 国人对于小贩中心食物价格的担忧，是可以理解的。因为食材占了小贩营运成本的很大一部分，几乎有60%到70%，所以小贩和我们一样，也受到粮食价格上涨的冲击。
200 在制定价格时，许多小贩都感到非常纠结。一方面，他们希望为忠实顾客提供价格实惠的美食，另一方面，他们需要涨价来应付日益提高的食材和人力成本。我相信许多在座的国会议员对他们的挣扎都感同身受。
201 我知道有好些小贩多年来都维持着他们的食物价格。例如，在牛车水大厦巴刹与熟食中心卖卤鸭饭的周志伟告诉我，他在过去20多年来为食客提供三块钱的鸭饭。我知道他为了要让住在附近的年长人士享用经济实惠的美食，尽量维持这个价格。直到疫情暴发，他才无奈把价格调高到四块钱，来应付营业成本的上涨。
202 小贩要赚取合理的收入一点也不容易。我们的小贩一般都会考虑顾客群的收入、背景等，尽可能避免涨价。不过，小贩必须能够制定切合实际的售价，并时不时调整食物的价格， 来维持他们的生计。
203 若要小贩自己承担食材价格的上涨，他们可能会吃不消。价格上涨虽然让国人感到难以接受，但我相信许多国人都能理解小贩的处境。
204 此外，由于小贩们都是亲自经营摊位，他们每天可以售卖的食物分量和赚取的利润是有限的。我们假设小贩每售卖一碗面可以赚取一块钱的利润，他们一周六天，每天需要卖出200份面，才能赚取相等于新加坡人平均月入的5000元。大部分的小贩可能卖不了那么多餐点，每份餐点的利润也可能没有那么高。就像谢秉辉议员所分享的例子，许多小贩售卖一份餐点的利润就只有三毛钱到四毛钱左右。
205 小贩和大家一样，也需要可持续的收入来源。这对小贩行业的可持续性也有一定的影响。目前，我国小贩的年龄中位数是60岁。随着年长的小贩逐渐退休，我们需要注入新血来维持小贩行业。如果小贩不能赚取合理的收入，那么小贩行业对有多种就业选择的年轻一代来说，就没那么有吸引力。
206 另一方面，我们在协助小贩应付营运成本的当儿，也希望尽可能保持小贩文化的 “本土” 特色。为了维护小贩中心的本土特色，我们只允许新加坡公民或永久居民成为摊主。我理解小贩们为了缓解人手紧张的情况而需要雇用非本地劳工。但是完全放宽外籍劳动力的限制很可能会显著地改变小贩中心的性质。 这些是互相对峙的考量，必需谨慎拿捏。
207 我们了解小贩面对艰难的经营环境，也理解国人渴望能享有价格实惠的小贩美食。不过，要在两者之间取得平衡，其实没有简单的办法。我们同意非选区议员梁文辉所说的，政府在支援小贩方面扮演了一定的角色。这正是我们过去几十年来从未停止的工作。我们把在街头营业的小贩聚集在小贩中心内，并通过我们的措施，为小贩提供有利的经营环境。
208 当我们在2011年重新兴建小贩中心时，我们致力于更好地满足新加坡人的需求。与此同时，我们也以具有前瞻性的心态去测试和探索新的管理模式。在保障小贩的生计和满足消费者需求的当儿，也确保小贩中心能顺应不断变化的经营环境。我稍后会进一步解释社会企业小贩中心（SEHC）的模式。
209 我们必须携手设法确保小贩美食的价格维持在可负担得起的水平，同时保障小贩的生计。这个解决方案必须以强而有力的社会契约为基础，将所有利益相关者凝聚起来。政府负担兴建小贩中心的费用，并通过制定政策支持小贩，为他们提供有利的经营环境，以确保他们能为国人提供负担得起的美食。本地社群和私人企业在推动支持小贩和食客的措施方面，也能发挥一定的作用。消费者也能通过光顾小贩中心，并愿意以合理的价格购买小贩美食，来支持我们的小贩、改善他们的生计。
210 现在，让我谈一谈国家环境局小贩中心的租金课题。政府负责兴建小贩中心，并不通过租金来回收成本。摊位租金根据投标者的标价而定。没有设定的门槛。
211 我们的政策是通过投标制度，来分配环境局管理的小贩中心摊位。摊位会分配给出价最高的投标者，他们在首三年的租期内，必须支付投标价。这个过程是公开、透明和容易理解的。投标制度能让市场机制在小贩中心发挥作用。这个过程鼓励有热忱和认真的业者前来投标。在投标前，他们必须考虑到市场的情况和营业成本，并决定他们要售卖的食物。摊位的表现和可持续性，将取决于食物的质量和价格。这样的市场竞争机制塑造了我们现有小贩中心的面貌。这样的机制不仅能满足消费者对小贩美食的需求和期望，对小贩和消费者来说也是公平的。
212 这与政府为缓和小贩摊位租金所采取的其他措施相辅相成。我们也会定期检讨和改善这些措施。目前，我们没有制定保留租金和最低标价。这样一来，投标者能以最廉价的租金标下摊位。事实上，在过去三年里，有超过300个摊位的投标价低于100块，有几个摊位的标价甚至只需要一块钱！ 在三年的租期之后，租金会调整到由专业估价师确定的平均市场租金价格（AMR）。我们最近更新了这项措施，将租金的下调期拉长，以尽量避免投标价过高的问题。
213 整体而言，我们在国家环境局管理的小贩中心所实施的租金政策, 取得适当的成效。
214 但其实，不管在任何制度之下， 都会有它的利与弊。比方说有反对党议员提议，我们应该舍弃投标制度，采取抽签制度，或者提供其他的选项让我们进行投标。让我先解释一下，投标制度有什么好处。抽签制度虽然能给予所有的投标者平等的机会，让他们以固定的价格租下摊位，不过，抽签制度也可能会吸引那些不是真正想要租下摊位的人随意的申请，来碰碰运气。这么一来，热门小贩中心的摊位就会有太多人申请。那些真心想要开档的人租下摊位的几率就会因此变小，这对他们来说并不公平。
215 也有人提议采取固定租金模式来控制租金。然而，我们要以什么价格来制定这个固定租金？如果我们使用平均市场租金价格（AMR），那么所有小贩都需要支付这个价格。不过，根据2023年的数据，在现有的投标制度下，有44%的摊位以低于平均市场租金成功被标下。有20%的投标者的租金少过500元。这些比较低的租金，有助于降低小贩的营运成本。如果采取这个固定租金的模式，那几乎一半的小贩将会交付比现在高出许多的租金。
216 因此，我建议我们也会保持着开放态度，有必要时，继续尝试不同的模式。其实我们也曾在SEHC采用“价格与素质”模式（price-quality models），摊位租金是预先制定的，摊位也由经营者负责筛选。总而言之，无论制定什么政策，我们都必须确保做法透明，让投标者能容易理解，同时也能带来更好的成果。
217 我们将继续密切关注小贩摊位租金的走势，以及小贩摊位租金最近所引起的关注。一小部分的摊位竞标价相当高，尤其是那些位于受欢迎小贩中心内的摊位。例如，马林百列熟食中心的熟食摊位，最近达到了超过1万元的标价。一些投标者可能为了得到自己理想的摊位，提出过高的投标价格，并盘算在三年后只需要缴付较低的平均市场租金。
218 上个星期我宣布将实行两项措施，鼓励有意投标者在投标时能更好地考虑实际市场情况。首先，我们将供更多信息和业务成本估算工具。这是为了帮助和鼓励投标者做出更明智的决定。不过，一些投标者可能还是会选择提交过高的标价。为了抑制这样的情况，我们将延长投标租金的下调期，遏制有意投标的小贩提交不切实际的标价。在首三年后，摊位租金的下调幅度是投标价格和平均市场租金差额的一半。只有从第七年开始，才会完全调整到平均市场租金。
219 我们希望这些调整能鼓励有意投标的小贩以符合实际情况的方式投标。我们会继续观察小贩摊位的投标情况，并在适当时做出相关的政策调整。
220 今天许多议员谈到SEHC模式。我要强调，无论是由国家环境局或SEHC经营者管理的小贩中心，我们的基本原则保持不变。小贩和消费者依然是我们政策的核心。
221 我们在2011年开始重新兴建小贩中心。这是为了满足社区对价格实惠的美食，以及多样化饮食选择的需求。不过，单单兴建小贩中心是不够的，我们要确保小贩中心能取得成功。这意味着我们需要尝试新的管理模式，才能保障小贩的生计和满足消费者的需求。同时，我们也要顺应不断变化的营业环境。
222 除此之外，对我们来说最重要的是要确保新小贩中心充满活力。以前，一些公众因小贩中心营业时间太短，不能满足他们的用餐需求，而感到不满。这个话题也在国会2010年时，也进行了一轮的辩论。近年来，我们也收到有关小贩中心营业时间的反馈。
223 因此，我们制定了SEHC模式。这个管理模式有不少优点。第一，SEHC经营者具备行业知识和经验。他们可以利用自己在餐饮业的专长，确保小贩中心具有活力。第二，SEHC经营者可以通过自己在餐饮业的人脉，筛选和吸引小贩入驻。第三，SEHC经营者可以协助摊主创新和适应行业的新趋势，如帮助小贩加入送餐平台。
224 好的饮食选择和客流量对于打造一个富有活力的小贩中心，是非常重要的。小贩能够蓬勃发展，并赚取合理的收入。当小贩认为延长营业时间是行得通的，小贩中心就能更好地满足居民的用餐需求。我们相信SEHC管理模式，能够实现这些目标。
225 当然，和所有的管理模式一样，我们需要时不时做出调整和解决一些营运方面的问题。我们会继续和SEHC的经营者和小贩紧密沟通，在必要的时候作出调整。
226 目前，我国的121个小贩中心当中，有14个是由国家环境局委任的SEHC经营者所负责管理。
227 在制定这个模式时，我们致力于在两个关键方面取得平衡：为公众提供价格实惠的餐饮选择；为小贩创造一个有利的经营环境。
228 我们制定保障措施，确保经营者不会牟取暴利，并和国家环境局与小贩紧密合作，优先考虑小贩和居民的需求。
229 首先，关于租金和运营成本，有意投标的SEHC经营者必须在他们的计划书中明确列出摊位租金和其他收费。在得标后，他们不能随意调整小贩租金和运营费用。此外，我们实施了分阶段租金计划 (staggered rent scheme)，SEHC经营者在小贩中心运营的首两年必须给予小贩租金优惠，帮助小贩应付营运费用。
230 其次，确保经营条件对小贩公平。SEHC经营者和小贩签订的协议中列明了一系列经营条款。这包括明确规定摊位的营业时间，以确保维持小贩中心的活力，并有足够的摊位为居民全天提供食物。我们也确保小贩的利益获得保障。例如，在营业时间方面，小贩每周只需开档五天，每天不超过八小时。这些都是SEHC经营者必须遵守的准则。他们也必须向小贩清楚解释这些条款，确保他们在签署前充分理解协议内容。
231 第三，我们要求SEHC经营者履行社会责任。根据他们和国家环境局之间的协议，经营者必须将至少50%的盈余用于惠及小贩中心和小贩的项目。一些经营者推出多项措施来提高小贩中心的客流量。例如，提供接驳巴士让食客能更方便地到达义顺公园小贩中心，以及在武吉坎贝拉小贩中心举行活动。每个摊位也必须提供至少一种经济餐，以照顾不同收入群体的需求。我想强调的是，这些经济餐只占了SEHC小贩中心销售餐点的5%到20%。小贩还是能够继续售卖其他食物并制定适当的价格，以确保他们能够继续赚取合理的收入。小贩在售卖经济餐时不会亏本。SEHC经营者可以提议调整这些经济餐的价格，国家环境局也会根据市场情况和摊主赚取合理收入的能力来进行评估。
232 经过多年的努力，SEHC模式的总体运作，总的来说还是良好的。根据国家环境局最新的调查显示，超过97%的顾客和小贩对SEHC表示满意。这些小贩中心保持着高入驻率和低摊位流动率，新开设的小贩中心也颇受欢迎，不少人有意申请摊位。
233 然而，我们并不因此自满。我们深知，一些SEHC经营者在初期阶段也面临不少挑战。因此，我们通过开放招标的方式更新SEHC的业者。这是个透明的过程，表现良好的经营者能继续营业，必要时也可以淘汰表现欠佳的业者。这有助于促进良性竞争，激励经营者不断改进他们的管理模式。
234 随着我们将SEHC模式推广到更多新的小贩中心，我们会继续密切观察情况，并与小贩和经营者紧密合作。我们的目标是确保这些新的小贩中心能够持续为公众提供价格实惠的食物，同时保障小贩的利益。
235 外来因素如通货膨胀给我们的小贩和国人带来许多挑战。我们深切理解大家的感受。对小贩来说，营运成本，尤其是食材价格的上涨，意味着他们必须去承担部分成本，或被迫起价。对于国人来说，在其他生活用品价格也跟着上涨的同时，要付多五毛钱或一块钱来享用小贩中心的食物，难免会感到负担越来越重。
236 如同各位议员所提到的，政府在本地社群和私人企业的支持下，正在竭尽所能缓解成本上涨的冲击。
237 要怎么让我们的小贩文化和行业继续蓬勃发展，是今天辩论的核心。政府会不遗余力继续支持小贩和小贩行业。消费者也扮演着重要的角色。许多国人担心全球通货膨胀对生活费所造成的影响。不过，小贩要赚取合理的收入，就必须考虑现实情况，为食物定出合理的价格。小贩需要消费者的支持。我们必须建立强而有力的社会契约，才能确保小贩文化能蓬勃发展。
238 我国的小贩中心是 “社区饭厅” ，为国人提供负担得起的饮食选择。也因为有历代小贩们的努力，新加坡美食才会世界闻名。
239 新加坡在1965年独立后，便投入资源将街头摊贩陆续迁移到小贩中心，就是希望在更优化的环境里，小贩们能够安全、舒适、卫生的经营生意，食客也吃得开心，吃得安心。随着时代改变，政府也一直努力探索不同的营运模式，希望小贩中心能顺应时代的步伐和不断变化的经营环境，在满足消费者需求的同时，也保障小贩的生计。
240 政府深知小贩们的贡献和所面临的各种挑战，包括成本上涨的压力和消费者需求的变化。政府承诺会继续聆听大家的意见，并以开放的态度，审视和改进相关政策。保障小贩的生计，让小贩行业能长久持续下去，吸引年轻一代的国人加入。保留我们独特的本地小贩文化，确保它不会被连锁经营者取代这个行业是我们的目标之一。我们也会和小贩们紧密合作，重视他们的反馈。
241 在此，我要向勤奋和不屈不挠的小贩们致敬。也让我们一起努力，支持并守护我们的小贩文化，让它代代相传。
242 Mr Speaker Sir, I stand in support of the motion, as amended by Mr Edward Chia.