• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Serious Debate Over Social Enteprise Hawker Center Fuelled By Oppie Fake News And Misinformation!

JohnTan

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
raj_amykhor4.jpg


SINGAPORE — Debate over social enterprise-run hawker centres — a hot-button issue that has come under scrutiny in recent months — has been “in part fuelled by hearsay and anecdotes which have emotive appeal”, said Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources Amy Khor.

Seeking to dispel some mistaken beliefs surrounding social enterprise-run hawker centres, Dr Khor said the management model was never meant to be “a magic pill”.

“Some of these hearsay and anecdotes may be well-meaning but (are) misinformed. In fact, quite a number are really not verified,” she told TODAY in an hour-long interview at Kampung Admiralty Hawker Centre on Friday (Nov 16).

The Government’s stock-take of the social enterprise-run hawker centre model is also not a knee-jerk reaction, as the authorities always intended to “refine and improve the model as we go along”, she said.


The stock-take was announced about a month ago, after a series of complaints from hawkers and observers about unreasonable contractual terms and high ancillary costs.

The National Environment Agency (NEA), which oversees hawker centres, has announced several moves over the past two weeks to mitigate these concerns at seven new hawker centres.

In Singapore, 13 out of 114 hawker centres islandwide are managed by five social enterprise entities. Seven of the 13 centres are new, built after the Government announced in 2011 that it would restart the hawker centre building programme.

When asked if the authorities were aware of complaints before they were highlighted by hawkers and observers — such as consultant and entrepreneur K F Seetoh of Makansutra — Dr Khor would only reiterate that the NEA wanted to “set broad parameters” to begin with and “move in quickly” to address any issues that arose.

Operators were given some flexibility to implement innovative ideas, based on their experience in the food and beverage industry.

“Some of these are quite recent issues and we are working on it. The fact is we have worked very quickly to address them,” she said.

Having more formal feedback sessions with hawkers can help, she added, rather than having “misinformation, anecdotes, hearsay” making the rounds.

All five social enterprise operators — Fei Siong Food Management, NTUC Foodfare, Timbre Group, Hawker Management under Koufu, and OTHM under Kopitiam — have formed hawkers’ feedback groups in the hawker centres they manage, with at least one feedback session conducted in each centre so far.

Dr Khor added that the stock-take “will take a little while”. Some other areas the NEA is looking at are the selection criteria for operators, and what the authorities can leave to market forces.

ADDRESSING MISINFORMATION

While the authorities “appreciate the passionate conversations and discussions” about the hawker industry, Dr Khor said she wanted to address some misinformation — on rental and operating costs, budget meals and the deal that hawkers are getting — that “is really quite concerning”.

There have been claims that monthly rentals at social enterprise-run hawker centres are “astronomical and exorbitant”, she noted.

Dr Khor pointed out that the median monthly rent at the seven new hawker centres is S$2,000, while the median rent at comparable existing NEA-run hawker centres — based on location and amenities — is about S$1,700 a month.

The slightly higher figure accounts for the fact that the seven centres are new and better-designed, with stallholders able to benefit from larger stalls, better frontage, amenities and facilities, she explained.

The NEA also chooses operators that charge lower rentals and operating costs in their tender bids to run the new hawker centres. Operators are not allowed to change these costs during the hawkers’ tenancies, and have to get NEA’s approval to introduce additional charges.

“Even when we assess tenders and look at rentals, we also use guides from professional valuers. They assess fair market rent. They also look at tendered rent for existing hawker centres,” Dr Khor said.

On the issue of ancillary operating costs, Dr Khor said that those who compare the operating costs of existing NEA-managed hawker centres to those at new hawker centres are “not comparing apples to apples”.

The average monthly operating cost at existing hawker centres comes up to about S$600 while at new hawker centres, it is S$1,500. Dr Khor explained that the former only accounts for table-cleaning and service and conservancy charges.

Throw in dishwashing costs, which could run up to S$1,500 if hawkers employ an assistant for the task, and total operating costs at older hawker centres could go up to about S$2,100.

The S$1,500 average monthly operating cost at new hawker centres, however, already takes into account table-cleaning, service and conservancy, and centralised dishwashing costs.

“So I think (there’s) really quite a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation. Somebody just took one piece of information and said, rental is this, operating cost is this for existing centres, and it’s so low compared to social enterprise hawker centres. But they never said that the operating cost (for existing centres) doesn’t include dishwashing, which the stallholder has to do,” Dr Khor said.

Another area she highlighted was “this idea that we are forcing hawkers to sell their food at very low prices” — that is, at S$3 or less.

The reality is that hawkers are asked to sell only one budget meal priced at S$3 or less, and can price other dishes differently, she said.

“We are not artificially forcing the food prices of these hawkers to be low. We are just saying, ‘Sell one dish that is affordable and price the rest reasonably’. There is also a social objective of hawker centres and it’s to provide affordable food, but it’s not to the extent that hawkers cannot make a decent living,” she stressed.

She also tackled the notion that “operators are exploiting hawkers and that the Government does not care for hawkers”.

The Government has had the interests of hawkers in mind from the start, she said, pointing out that they require all the operators to plough back at least half of their operating surplus into the hawker centre for the benefit of the community. Operators also have to propose in their tender bids how they want to do so, such as giving meal vouchers to lower-income residents.

Asked if the NEA checks whether they follow through on their proposals, Dr Khor would only say that the agency regularly meets operators. Operators are required to submit their audited statements annually to the NEA.

Correcting an impression created that “all our hawkers are not doing well, especially at social enterprise hawker centres”, Dr Khor said: “The reality is that many are doing well. Of course we can do more to help the centres which are still new and struggling and building up.”

Yishun Park Hawker Centre, for example, which ran into some controversy over its tray return scheme when it opened late last year, “is doing all right”.

The NEA has been working with its operator, Timbre Group, to “facilitate programmes and innovations” that have increased footfall, she said.

“I think we cannot assume that once we build a hawker centre, it will be viable, it will do well. We need time to build this up, especially if they’re not in prime or very good locations, and that’s the reality,” she added.

Some regulations are needed at the new hawker centres, such as the number of hours and days that hawkers should open their stalls, she said.

This is to ensure the vibrancy of the hawker centre.

Many existing centres have anchor hawkers that bring consistent footfall, but new centres do not, she noted.

On some hawkers not necessarily understanding their contracts before signing them, she noted that during the stock-take, the NEA got operators to agree to explain the tenancy agreements to new hawkers in “simple terms” before they sign.

“Of course, in retrospect, the terms that we got the operators to agree to change, I think that is good because it allayed concerns that if this is in writing, people will be worried even though it may not actually be imposed,” she said.

‘COMMITTEES LISTENED TO HAWKERS’

On criticism of the composition of the Hawker Centres Consultation Panel and Hawker 3.0 Committee, Dr Khor said its members had conducted “extensive consultations” with hawkers.

The consultation panel was formed in 2011 to provide ideas on new hawker centres, while the 3.0 Committee proposed ways in 2017 to improve hawker centres and promote the trade.

Some have pointed out that both the panel and committee were made up mainly of people who do not have direct experience with hawker centres.

“You cannot just look at the committee itself because there will always be outreach and testing of ideas and so on,” Dr Khor said.

“We had people in the committee who were able to provide ideas on how to nurture, train people, behavioural studies, how to get people to be more gracious… We had suppliers of equipment (in the 3.0 committee) and so on to see how to reduce manual workload.”

Meanwhile, Dr Khor was coy about whether all hawker centres will eventually come under the social enterprise management model.

Some hawkers previously told TODAY that rumours have been going around.

“This new model, we are still refining and looking at how to improve it. It’s premature to have any stance on it,” she said.

The seven new hawker centres will continue being managed by social enterprises “because it’s achieved good outcomes”.

“As and when the other new hawker centres come up, we will look at how exactly we will manage them,” she said.

https://www.todayonline.com/singapo...ise-hawker-centres-partly-fueled-well-meaning
 

Hypocrite-The

Alfrescian
Loyal
Lai Liao Lai Liao.. every time make mistake will use fake news reason as a shield and sword ... Lol :biggrin:
Actually the social enterprise thing is a real example of pap rent seeking behaviour. Now the pappies r trying to cover up the mess bcos the shit has hit the fan..if really fake news. Sitoh etc will be sued till pants drop. But pap knows they have no legs to stand on with regards to this matter. So out comes the sugar coated turds. Anyway 70% voted for it.
 

AhMeng

Alfrescian (Inf- Comp)
Asset
Actually the social enterprise thing is a real example of pap rent seeking behaviour. Now the pappies r trying to cover up the mess bcos the shit has hit the fan..if really fake news. Sitoh etc will be sued till pants drop. But pap knows they have no legs to stand on with regards to this matter. So out comes the sugar coated turds. Anyway 70% voted for it.
70% sibei song :biggrin:
 

Kopi0Kosong

Alfrescian
Loyal
SINGAPORE — Debate over social enterprise-run hawker centres — a hot-button issue that has come under scrutiny in recent months — has been “in part fuelled by hearsay and anecdotes which have emotive appeal”, said Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources Amy Khor.
https://www.todayonline.com/singapo...ise-hawker-centres-partly-fueled-well-meaning

Fuelled by HEARSAY and ANECDOTES? Agreements shown do not lie. Money collected from hawkers are not lies. This shameless MOS is trying desperateLEE to sweep PAP's complacency and incompetency under a carpet which was never there. If it could be proven to be hearsay and untruth, would the PAP have not done it alreadLEE! The unscrupulous and manipulative PAP LEEders should not be allowed to get away this time!

Seeking to dispel some mistaken beliefs surrounding social enterprise-run hawker centres, Dr Khor said the management model was never meant to be “a magic pill”.
https://www.todayonline.com/singapo...ise-hawker-centres-partly-fueled-well-meaning

Mistaken beliefs? What magic is the wicked PAP witch talking about? Regardless of how PAP LEEders try to creativeLEE paint a nice picture, the truth is that the wicked PAP witch handed over the poison to the blood-sucking LEEches to poison the hawkers. How could a national LEEder ridicule the people by telling them not to associate or treat a national initiative as a MAGIC PILL? IndirectLEE, she is admitting that the existing model IS A FAILURE.


Some of these hearsay and anecdotes may be well-meaning but (are) misinformed. In fact, quite a number are really not verified,she told TODAY in an hour-long interview at Kampung Admiralty Hawker Centre on Friday (Nov 16).

Misinformed or not verified? Then, please list out and verify. The PEOPLE challenge.
 

Kopi0Kosong

Alfrescian
Loyal
“We are not artificially forcing the food prices of these hawkers to be low. We are just saying, ‘Sell one dish that is affordable and price the rest reasonably’. There is also a social objective of hawker centres and it’s to provide affordable food, but it’s not to the extent that hawkers cannot make a decent living,” she stressed.

MUST sell one dish below $3.00 is not artificialLEE FORCING?
Hawkers forced to perform community service, and PAP LEEders and their LEElated LEEches get all the credits. This is PAP Singapore.


She also tackled the notion that “operators are exploiting hawkers and that the Government does not care for hawkers”. The Government has had the interests of hawkers in mind from the start, she said, pointing out that they require all the operators to plough back at least half of their operating surplus into the hawker centre for the benefit of the community. Operators also have to propose in their tender bids how they want to do so, such as giving meal vouchers to lower-income residents.

If the PAP Government had truLEE cared for the hawkers, such a situation would not have surfaced all over the country. The PAP Government NEGLECTED the hawkers and allowed the 'NO-GOVERNMENT' pseudo-Social Enterprises to ABUSE the hawkers.
Hawkers forced to perform community service, and PAP LEEders and their LEElated LEEches get all the credits. This is poorLEE managed PAP Singapore.
 

a_korusawa

Alfrescian
Loyal
again, this a koh, like many other ministers kept bragging that they come from poor family hence gone thru' hardship and knew what's like struggling in the heartlands.
TOTAL BS! the host in last week's TV show on social enterprise hawker kept asking her but she refused to answer and only said adjustments have been made last month after feedback!
what a bloody excuse!
its so shamelessly orchestrated to mislead people - what a shame!
 

Scrooball (clone)

Alfrescian
Loyal
They should just scrap the term 'social enterprise'.

Enterprise is like some kind of an entrepreneur. How can u be one, if u are stuck by ridiculous costs and rules? Run the damn food stall for 24 hours! Pay higher than average dish wash rates!
 

Hypocrite-The

Alfrescian
Loyal
Hey the dishwashing subsidy is only for 2 years. Wat a shit policy. Thanks 70%





dr-amy-khor.jpg

Dr Amy Khor speaking on CareShield in Parliament
NEA announces subsidies for hawkers at social enterprise hawker centers for only 2 years
Correspondent 2018-11-19 Current Affairs

NEA announced on Fri (16 Nov) that stallholders at the 7 new hawker centres run by Social Enterprises would receive grant subsidies to help pay for dish-washing services from next year onward.
"From 1 January 2019, NEA will co-fund the cost of centralised dishwashing service with stallholders, at 50% for the first year and 30% for the second year," NEA said.
NEA said that besides manpower savings, the centralised dishwashing services will "enhance the cleanliness of the hawker centre and rate of table turnover, which benefits both hawkers and patrons".
in-art-close-icon-128x128-16481b937f87b244a645cdbef0d930f8.png

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––


unmiss-sound-button-muted-e74d67a0c85c3548f07d7564782a269c.svg


"Stallholders can then focus on their cooking as they need not worry about hiring assistants to wash their crockeries, and can also save on their utility bills, NEA added.
"The extension of NEA’s subsidy to stallholders at the new hawker centres is to help them better manage their operating costs during the initial period before the new centres establish themselves and attract a stable pool of clientele."
“In the past month, besides reviewing the contractual terms between operators and stallholders, NEA also conducted a review of the operating costs faced by stallholders at our new hawker centres. We recognise that these centres may need time to establish themselves and build-up a clientele. Many of the costs faced by the stallholders, like Service and Conservancy charges and table cleaning fees, are ‘pass-through’ charges," said Tan Meng Dui, CEO of NEA, who is a former SAF general.
"We hope that by extending the ‘Productive Hawker Centres’ grant for centralised dishwashing service to stallholders, this will help them to better manage their operating costs in the initial years as they start-up their businesses, and help to sustain our hawker trade in the long term.”
Minister Khor weighs in
Dr Khor added, "The hawker trade has been facing the challenges of an ageing workforce and manpower constraints."
She said, "The centralised dishwashing service has helped to address this as stallholders need not hire assistants, who are hard to find, or pay salaries of up to $1,500 a month."
"This also saves stallholders from paying additional water charges or managing an inventory of crockery and cutlery that have to be replaced due to wear and tear or loss," she defended the centralised dishwashing service.
"Hygiene is better as they do not have to carry out dishwashing in the stall area. We hope this will alleviate the workload of our hawkers, especially older hawkers, and make the trade more attractive to young hawkers by reducing menial work."
It has been reported that Koufu's subsidiary, Hawker Management Pte Ltd, operating the new public funded Jurong West Hawker Centre, has awarded its cleaning and dishwashing contract to GreatSolutions, a company owned by a brother of Koufu's boss.
The contract let GreatSolutions earn close to $64,000 a month.
Hawker Management, in turn, charges each stallholder $1,100 monthly for the centralised cleaning services. With NEA's subsidy for next year, stallholders at Jurong West Hawker Centre would then be paying only $550 a month with the other half paid for by taxpayers.
In any case, NEA will not continue to subsidize the hawkers at these social enterprise hawker centers forever. But with the subsidies, it certainly does help to attract more hawkers to join the new social enterprise hawker centers.
FacebookTwitterWhatsAppLineWeChatShare559


PreviousIf PM Lee considers two years prep time short, aren’t things so much worse for the opposition parties?
NextSpending 14 million to reduce energy consumption does not gel with Masagos Zulkifli’s stance on plastic use
You Might Also Like
Recommended by









November 2018M T W T F S S « Oct 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930
Recent Comments







Democracy is best served by having an informed and involved citizenry that has access to a wide range of sources of news and views and an open and vibrant environment in which to share and to debate ideas and opinions.

Support TOC!Become a Patron!


Copyright - The Online Citizen 2018
The Online Citizen -- Singapore’s longest-running independent online media platform.





g.gif
 

Scrooball (clone)

Alfrescian
Loyal
https://www.socialenterprise.org.uk/Pages/FAQs/Category/FAQs

What is a social enterprise business?

By selling goods and services in the open market, social enterprises reinvest the money they make back into their business or the local community. This allows them to tackle social problems, improve people's life chances, support communities and help the environment. So when a social enterprise profits society profits.


Sounds like using any ways or means to get high profits in the name of giving back to society. What a load of crap!
 

Kopi0Kosong

Alfrescian
Loyal
They should just scrap the term 'social enterprise'.
Enterprise is like some kind of an entrepreneur. How can u be one, if u are stuck by ridiculous costs and rules? Run the damn food stall for 24 hours! Pay higher than average dish wash rates!

There is no need for the LEEching middle man. The real social enterprises are the hawkers. Credits and rewards should be accorded to the real people performing the community service, the hawkers. Original intention is noble. Implementation is poorLEE done. ActuaLEEty is deviLEEsh.
 

AhMeng

Alfrescian (Inf- Comp)
Asset
Social enterprise is a term abused by the chenghu to benefit their crony business supporters, while exploiting the hawkers and consumers. It's as simple as that ... Low life hawkers take the risk, the so called social enterprise makes all the money ... These crony business middlemen is sure win!
 
Top