Still have to cut your foreskin. 555
Chitchat Minah Chiobu Stewardess now sell Nasi Lemak
- Thread starter Pinkieslut
- Start date
U can teach how to cook tom yum pork leg. Arai mak mak.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 31,074
- Points
- 113
So can request for Haram foods on board those flights? N if mudslimes order alcohol ...will the order be accepted?
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 31,074
- Points
- 113
And Ramly Burger
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 31,074
- Points
- 113
Than why do mudslimes m&ds make such a hoo ha about pigs n pork?
- Joined
- May 16, 2023
- Messages
- 40,869
- Points
- 113
nyongya no need lah
Very atas
吃一餐要几千块？
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2010
- Messages
- 35,436
- Points
- 113
They even have prayer rooms
Knock yourselves out mozzies
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2017
- Messages
- 701
- Points
- 43
They actually can serve, just not selling them directly to make a profit. Say I am a muslim working at a makan place serving pork and alcohol as a waiter. It's perfectly fine as I am drawing a salary. Of coz, there's always some zealots will say I am WRONG, blah blah.
They're not new to this concept. Their "Ah-gong" is orthodox Judaism (Those wear all black suit with a hat and sideburn pigtails) start the no consumption of pork, but they drink alcohol during Sabbath. Watch a documentary a long time ago. Just paraphrasing from my hazy memories. Originally the middle east and north african not as dry and arid like now. Consumption of pork was quite common.
Somewhere down the history, it started to be very dry and arid like now. As Pigs cannot sweat, so they need m&d to wallow to keep cool. They also consume alot of food unlike goats and sheeps. As pigs are traditionally keep in open pens with soil. They carry trichinellosis and tapeworms. These days the pork we eat that's imported from Australia, are kept indoors away from the elements aka factory farming. They're generally way cleaner than open pens.
In regard to alcohol, they're quite hypocritical. I personally know some Arabs, Afgans, Bangladshis, Malays consuming alcohol over here in SG and Australia. Especially when they're away from their families. It's less frown upon compared to pork.
Their book is over a 1,000 years old outdated. Especially when it comes to modern pig farming. They also actually cannot interest from their bank account. But this is a topic for another day.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 16, 2023
- Messages
- 40,869
- Points
- 113
They have high hope like King Trump to ascend to heaven mah..72 veerjins
No need lah. This is not budget airline. It comes with the air tickets.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 31,074
- Points
- 113
Is tat really their description of paradise?
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2023
- Messages
- 14,962
- Points
- 113
As long as the airline serves alcohol onboard it will not be able to obtain a halal certification.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 31,074
- Points
- 113
So MAS is not halal certified?
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2023
- Messages
- 14,962
- Points
- 113
In Malaysia, anything goes. LOL!
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 31,074
- Points
- 113
Hypocrisy at its best
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2023
- Messages
- 14,962
- Points
- 113
The PAP is far worse, calling themselves "honest" and "serving the people" while their greed, dishonesty, arrogance and hunger for power is all too apparent.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 31,074
- Points
- 113
Pap can do whatever it wants bcos the voters allow them to do it
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 31,074
- Points
- 113
SEHC contracts under scrutiny: Are hawkers worse off in socially-conscious hawker centres?
Recent disputes over budget meals and enforced digital discounts at Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres (SEHCs) have revived criticism that hawker contracts remain overly burdensome, raising questions over whether SEHCs truly serve their original purpose.
Published
on
22 August 2025
When Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres (SEHCs) were introduced in Singapore, they were lauded as a forward-looking solution to safeguard the nation’s hawker heritage.
By partnering with private operators under a social enterprise mandate, the government aimed to balance public interests with professional management.
Yet, more than a decade on, hawkers operating in SEHCs continue to face burdens that appear unique to this model — including enforced discount schemes, budget meal obligations, and contract clauses that blur the line between voluntary service and operational coercion.
A recent incident at Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre brought long-standing concerns about SEHCs into sharp relief — when food critic K.F. Seetoh revealed a clause in stallholder contracts requiring hawkers to provide 100 free meals over three years as part of a “Pay-it-Forward” initiative.
In an August 2025 Facebook post, he criticised the scheme as a form of “forced charity.”
Health Minister Ong Ye Kung, who oversees the ward, responded days later by publicly denying that hawkers faced penalties for opting out.
But this assurance was soon contradicted by contract documents shown to the media, which confirmed that demerit points could be imposed for non-compliance — meaning the clause had practical enforcement consequences.
Amid public scrutiny, operator Canopy Hawkers Group announced that while the clause would not be enforced, it would remain in existing contracts and only be removed in future renewals. In effect, hawkers were still bound to a clause that remained legally in force.
One stallholder told The Straits Times, “We were told it’s optional, but the contract says otherwise. That’s not right.” Another added, “Doing charity is voluntary, not by force.”
This sequence — public rebuttal, documentary contradiction, and partial retreat — reflects not just a miscommunication, but a structural issue in the governance of SEHCs.
A model of contradictions
Since 2015, the model has relied on private operators — appointed by the National Environment Agency (NEA) — to manage new hawker centres under a not-for-profit framework.
Operators are expected to reinvest at least 50 per cent of any annual operating surplus into programmes benefiting hawkers or the wider community.
But by allowing operators to define contract terms, the model has created a mismatch between social goals and commercial execution. Hawkers find themselves shouldering costs that support public outcomes, without guaranteed returns or protection.
Budget meals: social goal, private cost
Among the most consistent obligations in SEHC contracts is the provision of budget meals — dishes typically priced at S$3.00 to S$3.50, intended to support affordability. These meals, however, must be priced and absorbed by hawkers themselves.
At Buangkok Hawker Centre, stallholder Eileen Leong of Penang Alley described how her budget meals, which are snapped up by some 50 customers per month, were “unsustainable”. Despite requesting a price increase to S$4.00, her operator, Fei Siong Social Enterprise, denied the proposal.
Other hawkers reported that margins on budget meals were as low as 20 to 30 cents, if not a loss. One hawker at Our Tampines Hub previously sold budget meals at S$2.80 before the price cap was revised in 2024.
He said: “At least now, I can make some profit. Before that, it was impossible.”
Though the NEA has clarified that budget meals account for only 5 to 20 per cent of all meals sold at SEHCs, the compulsory inclusion in contracts means hawkers must plan, price, and absorb the impact — regardless of volume or sustainability.
Operator apps and the cost of digital loyalty
Another source of strain is the use of operator apps offering 10 per cent discounts to customers — with the discount borne entirely by the hawkers.
These apps, implemented by operators such as FairPrice Group, Timbre Group, and Canopy Hawkers Group, were pitched as tools to boost footfall.
However, hawkers at SEHCs like One Punggol, Anchorvale Village, and Yishun Park report monthly losses of S$800 to S$1,000 due to the rebates.
A prata and rojak stallholder at One Punggol said: “We lose a thousand dollars every month from the Timbre app.” Another, shocked by the uptake, said: “I didn’t expect so many people to have the app.”
The app discounts also cannot be used for budget meals, which are priced separately — doubling the strain for hawkers already managing tight cost margins.
Stallholders argue that if such schemes are intended to benefit the centre, the operator should absorb or subsidise the discount. “It’s the operator’s app,” one hawker remarked. “Why are we paying for their promotion?”
2018 promises vs 2025 reality
In 2018, parliamentary scrutiny of SEHCs led to the introduction of contract reforms intended to curb unreasonable terms. Then-Senior Minister of State Amy Khor defended the system, stating:
“Hawkers enter into tenancy agreements with operators voluntarily, knowing the terms.”
She assured Parliament that NEA had intervened where needed, and that contracts would be standardised to prevent abuses.
However, 2022 contracts at Bukit Canberra still included penalties for not using the app, and enforced clauses tied to social schemes like Pay-it-Forward.
Reflecting on Parliament: Calls for Protection
These pressures were addressed in a 2024 parliamentary motion on preserving hawker culture, tabled by Progress Singapore Party (PSP) Secretary-General, and then-Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP), Leong Mun Wai. The motion called for a full review of hawker policies to better support livelihoods and sustain Singapore’s hawker heritage.
During the debate, Leong stated:
“It is not sustainable to keep food prices artificially low at the hawker centres and expect the hawkers to absorb the costs… If the Government wants hawkers to sell food at low prices, it must provide direct subsidies.”
Leong, drawing from both personal experience and public data, argued that the Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres model had led to rising auxiliary costs, excessive contract burdens, and higher early termination rates.
He questioned whether it was fair for private operators to extract profits from public hawker centres:
“Is it justifiable for private operators to extract surpluses or profits from hawker centres which are public assets?”
Leong proposed that SEHCs be phased out and replaced by a dedicated public agency — Hawker Singapore — which would centralise management, support succession planning, and lead efforts to promote local hawker culture both domestically and abroad.
His PSP colleague, then-NCMP Hazel Poa, followed up by arguing that the Government — not individual hawkers — should bear responsibility for food affordability.
She pointed out the contradictions in compelling hawkers to offer budget meals out of pocket, while better-off customers benefited:
“The Government’s current ‘budget meal’ approach… is open to all… How is this fair to the hawkers?”
She also questioned why other essentials — like housing or healthcare — received subsidies, but hawker food remained unsupported. Poa advocated for direct food discounts funded by the state, and a new fixed rent model that could reduce speculation and lower operating costs across the sector.
MPs across the aisle echoed similar concerns. Hazel Poa cautioned that clauses in SEHC contracts — even if unenforced — still had coercive impact:
“A clause that is not enforced is still a clause. It creates fear. It gives operators power they should not have.”
Even PAP MP Henry Kwek acknowledged the imbalance between intent and implementation:
“Even well-intentioned policies can weigh heavily on our hawkers. They are cooks, not contract lawyers.”
While the motion was not adopted, the debate reflected growing bipartisan concern over hawker sustainability — and the urgent need to align social aims with real structural support.
Public infrastructure, private surplus
In October 2024, the Ministry for Sustainability and the Environment revealed that SEHC operators posted an average annual operating surplus of S$100,000 between 2019 and 2023.
Of this, only 50 per cent must be reinvested into hawker support schemes.
This has led to questions about whether SEHCs — while operating on public land and fulfilling public policy roles — are too commercially driven.
As Leong put it in Parliament: “Is it justifiable for private operators to extract surpluses or profits from hawker centres which are public assets?”
Hawkers, meanwhile, continue to face rising costs — from ingredients and utilities to fees for cleaning and dishwashing — even as their earnings are trimmed by enforced app discounts and price restrictions.
NEA-run centres offer contrast
NEA-managed hawker centres are not without challenges, but they typically do not enforce app-based discounts, impose charitable clauses, or link performance to tenancy renewal through demerit points.
Hawkers at NEA centres have more autonomy over pricing and operations, and are not subject to performance systems tied to loyalty apps or promotional schemes.
One hawker at Bukit Merah View Market & Hawker Centre — which is NEA-run — noted: “At least I know where I stand. I don’t have to check what the app is doing, or whether I’ve earned enough stars this month.”
Towards genuine social enterprise or structural reset?
The original promise of SEHCs — affordable food, vibrant centres, supported hawkers — remains compelling. But recent incidents have revealed deep cracks in the foundation.
The Bukit Canberra case reflects more than a communications error.
It reveals how contractual clauses, even unenforced, can function as coercive instruments.
The continued expectation to provide discounts, run operator apps, and absorb budget pricing points to a systemic issue: the social obligations embedded in SEHC contracts are poorly aligned with the economic realities of hawker life. But these are only the most visible symptoms.
As years of hawker feedback on SEHCs have shown, concerns about cost pressures, labour shortages, and uneven bargaining power within this model have been building for some time.
Until these contradictions are resolved — either through deeper NEA oversight or structural reform — SEHCs may struggle to fulfil their mandate.
As more hawkers voice dissatisfaction, the case for re-examining the model grows stronger.
Share this:
Recent disputes over budget meals and enforced digital discounts at Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres (SEHCs) have revived criticism that hawker contracts remain overly burdensome, raising questions over whether SEHCs truly serve their original purpose.
Published
on
22 August 2025
When Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres (SEHCs) were introduced in Singapore, they were lauded as a forward-looking solution to safeguard the nation’s hawker heritage.
By partnering with private operators under a social enterprise mandate, the government aimed to balance public interests with professional management.
Yet, more than a decade on, hawkers operating in SEHCs continue to face burdens that appear unique to this model — including enforced discount schemes, budget meal obligations, and contract clauses that blur the line between voluntary service and operational coercion.
A recent incident at Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre brought long-standing concerns about SEHCs into sharp relief — when food critic K.F. Seetoh revealed a clause in stallholder contracts requiring hawkers to provide 100 free meals over three years as part of a “Pay-it-Forward” initiative.
In an August 2025 Facebook post, he criticised the scheme as a form of “forced charity.”
Health Minister Ong Ye Kung, who oversees the ward, responded days later by publicly denying that hawkers faced penalties for opting out.
But this assurance was soon contradicted by contract documents shown to the media, which confirmed that demerit points could be imposed for non-compliance — meaning the clause had practical enforcement consequences.
Amid public scrutiny, operator Canopy Hawkers Group announced that while the clause would not be enforced, it would remain in existing contracts and only be removed in future renewals. In effect, hawkers were still bound to a clause that remained legally in force.
One stallholder told The Straits Times, “We were told it’s optional, but the contract says otherwise. That’s not right.” Another added, “Doing charity is voluntary, not by force.”
This sequence — public rebuttal, documentary contradiction, and partial retreat — reflects not just a miscommunication, but a structural issue in the governance of SEHCs.
A model of contradictions
Since 2015, the model has relied on private operators — appointed by the National Environment Agency (NEA) — to manage new hawker centres under a not-for-profit framework.
Operators are expected to reinvest at least 50 per cent of any annual operating surplus into programmes benefiting hawkers or the wider community.
But by allowing operators to define contract terms, the model has created a mismatch between social goals and commercial execution. Hawkers find themselves shouldering costs that support public outcomes, without guaranteed returns or protection.
Budget meals: social goal, private cost
Among the most consistent obligations in SEHC contracts is the provision of budget meals — dishes typically priced at S$3.00 to S$3.50, intended to support affordability. These meals, however, must be priced and absorbed by hawkers themselves.
At Buangkok Hawker Centre, stallholder Eileen Leong of Penang Alley described how her budget meals, which are snapped up by some 50 customers per month, were “unsustainable”. Despite requesting a price increase to S$4.00, her operator, Fei Siong Social Enterprise, denied the proposal.
Other hawkers reported that margins on budget meals were as low as 20 to 30 cents, if not a loss. One hawker at Our Tampines Hub previously sold budget meals at S$2.80 before the price cap was revised in 2024.
He said: “At least now, I can make some profit. Before that, it was impossible.”
Though the NEA has clarified that budget meals account for only 5 to 20 per cent of all meals sold at SEHCs, the compulsory inclusion in contracts means hawkers must plan, price, and absorb the impact — regardless of volume or sustainability.
Operator apps and the cost of digital loyalty
Another source of strain is the use of operator apps offering 10 per cent discounts to customers — with the discount borne entirely by the hawkers.
These apps, implemented by operators such as FairPrice Group, Timbre Group, and Canopy Hawkers Group, were pitched as tools to boost footfall.
However, hawkers at SEHCs like One Punggol, Anchorvale Village, and Yishun Park report monthly losses of S$800 to S$1,000 due to the rebates.
A prata and rojak stallholder at One Punggol said: “We lose a thousand dollars every month from the Timbre app.” Another, shocked by the uptake, said: “I didn’t expect so many people to have the app.”
The app discounts also cannot be used for budget meals, which are priced separately — doubling the strain for hawkers already managing tight cost margins.
Stallholders argue that if such schemes are intended to benefit the centre, the operator should absorb or subsidise the discount. “It’s the operator’s app,” one hawker remarked. “Why are we paying for their promotion?”
2018 promises vs 2025 reality
In 2018, parliamentary scrutiny of SEHCs led to the introduction of contract reforms intended to curb unreasonable terms. Then-Senior Minister of State Amy Khor defended the system, stating:
“Hawkers enter into tenancy agreements with operators voluntarily, knowing the terms.”
She assured Parliament that NEA had intervened where needed, and that contracts would be standardised to prevent abuses.
However, 2022 contracts at Bukit Canberra still included penalties for not using the app, and enforced clauses tied to social schemes like Pay-it-Forward.
Reflecting on Parliament: Calls for Protection
These pressures were addressed in a 2024 parliamentary motion on preserving hawker culture, tabled by Progress Singapore Party (PSP) Secretary-General, and then-Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP), Leong Mun Wai. The motion called for a full review of hawker policies to better support livelihoods and sustain Singapore’s hawker heritage.
During the debate, Leong stated:
“It is not sustainable to keep food prices artificially low at the hawker centres and expect the hawkers to absorb the costs… If the Government wants hawkers to sell food at low prices, it must provide direct subsidies.”
Leong, drawing from both personal experience and public data, argued that the Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres model had led to rising auxiliary costs, excessive contract burdens, and higher early termination rates.
He questioned whether it was fair for private operators to extract profits from public hawker centres:
“Is it justifiable for private operators to extract surpluses or profits from hawker centres which are public assets?”
Leong proposed that SEHCs be phased out and replaced by a dedicated public agency — Hawker Singapore — which would centralise management, support succession planning, and lead efforts to promote local hawker culture both domestically and abroad.
His PSP colleague, then-NCMP Hazel Poa, followed up by arguing that the Government — not individual hawkers — should bear responsibility for food affordability.
She pointed out the contradictions in compelling hawkers to offer budget meals out of pocket, while better-off customers benefited:
“The Government’s current ‘budget meal’ approach… is open to all… How is this fair to the hawkers?”
She also questioned why other essentials — like housing or healthcare — received subsidies, but hawker food remained unsupported. Poa advocated for direct food discounts funded by the state, and a new fixed rent model that could reduce speculation and lower operating costs across the sector.
MPs across the aisle echoed similar concerns. Hazel Poa cautioned that clauses in SEHC contracts — even if unenforced — still had coercive impact:
“A clause that is not enforced is still a clause. It creates fear. It gives operators power they should not have.”
Even PAP MP Henry Kwek acknowledged the imbalance between intent and implementation:
“Even well-intentioned policies can weigh heavily on our hawkers. They are cooks, not contract lawyers.”
While the motion was not adopted, the debate reflected growing bipartisan concern over hawker sustainability — and the urgent need to align social aims with real structural support.
Public infrastructure, private surplus
In October 2024, the Ministry for Sustainability and the Environment revealed that SEHC operators posted an average annual operating surplus of S$100,000 between 2019 and 2023.
Of this, only 50 per cent must be reinvested into hawker support schemes.
This has led to questions about whether SEHCs — while operating on public land and fulfilling public policy roles — are too commercially driven.
As Leong put it in Parliament: “Is it justifiable for private operators to extract surpluses or profits from hawker centres which are public assets?”
Hawkers, meanwhile, continue to face rising costs — from ingredients and utilities to fees for cleaning and dishwashing — even as their earnings are trimmed by enforced app discounts and price restrictions.
NEA-run centres offer contrast
NEA-managed hawker centres are not without challenges, but they typically do not enforce app-based discounts, impose charitable clauses, or link performance to tenancy renewal through demerit points.
Hawkers at NEA centres have more autonomy over pricing and operations, and are not subject to performance systems tied to loyalty apps or promotional schemes.
One hawker at Bukit Merah View Market & Hawker Centre — which is NEA-run — noted: “At least I know where I stand. I don’t have to check what the app is doing, or whether I’ve earned enough stars this month.”
Towards genuine social enterprise or structural reset?
The original promise of SEHCs — affordable food, vibrant centres, supported hawkers — remains compelling. But recent incidents have revealed deep cracks in the foundation.
The Bukit Canberra case reflects more than a communications error.
It reveals how contractual clauses, even unenforced, can function as coercive instruments.
The continued expectation to provide discounts, run operator apps, and absorb budget pricing points to a systemic issue: the social obligations embedded in SEHC contracts are poorly aligned with the economic realities of hawker life. But these are only the most visible symptoms.
As years of hawker feedback on SEHCs have shown, concerns about cost pressures, labour shortages, and uneven bargaining power within this model have been building for some time.
Until these contradictions are resolved — either through deeper NEA oversight or structural reform — SEHCs may struggle to fulfil their mandate.
As more hawkers voice dissatisfaction, the case for re-examining the model grows stronger.
Share this:
Similar threads
