[Sg] - OYK says KF Seetoh is talking nonsense

Who are the Real Owners, Directors of Canopy Hawkers Group ?
What's their Background ?
We have so many hawker centres in Singapore, did all hawkers encounter and sign the contract with same contractual terms as this Bukit Canberra Hawker centre?
Bukit Canberra Hawker centre might be just a tip of the iceberg, many more hidden issues yet to he exposed!
 
We have so many hawker centres in Singapore, did all hawkers encounter and sign the contract with same contractual terms as this Bukit Canberra Hawker centre?
Bukit Canberra Hawker centre might be just a tip of the iceberg, many more hidden issues yet to he exposed!
I am surprised till date no one has mentioned the term ' social enterprise ' which is basically what the pap has been saying these hawker centres are. The way these hawker centres are operated is basically a commercial profit entity no different to the past. Hence its just a word play by the powers that be
 
y tis siam king burger so gan jeong open his blahdy mouth n help defend ze operator? ...

ze hawker centre being in his constituency is not a strong enuff reason 4 him 2 cum out 2 defend ze operator ... there r definitely many of dese quarrel issues evrywhere in his constituency, y he never bother about dem? ... morova, he is sum1 who evryting oso siam 1 woh! ...

summor, ze operator oso boh chap ah seetohz noise ... until after ze burger opened his blahdy mouth ...

y din he leave ze matta 2 ze operator n let dem defend demselves ... he shud not b knowing mor tings dan ze operator demselves ...

is there sumting mor dan meets ze i? ...
That polish Kia Betrayus also need to open mouth and yak else can't get their citizenship wor lololololol
 
HDB hawker centre in 2025 is only for ultra low SES sinkies and new fucktizens, enjoy your dirty hawkers with shit hygiene

High SES foreigners only eat at Maxwell hawker centre if they come here

Why should our hawker centres have angmo names?
 
Hawkers at Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre will not need to provide free meals under new contracts
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox

Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre's management said the free meals initiative had never been implemented.
Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre's management said the free meal initiative has not officially started.

PHOTO: LIANHE ZAOBAO

avatar-alt
Published Aug 15, 2025, 11:20 PM

Updated Aug 16, 2025, 05:47 PM

SINGAPORE – The management of Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre will scrap clauses requiring hawkers to provide free meals when their contracts are renewed in September.

Following days of public outcry, the management said in a Facebook post on Aug 15 night that it may not proceed with its Pay-It-Forward initiative in its current form, which contractually required stallholders to provide free meals for the needy each month at their own expense, or risk being penalised.

It added that it was making a public commitment that it does not intend to enforce the obligation in the future.

The hawker centre is run by Canopy Hawkers Group, a subsidiary of Food Canopy.

Debate surrounding the Pay-it-Forward initiative first gained traction on Aug 8 when veteran food critic K.F. Seetoh

criticised the management’s attempt at “forced charity” in a Facebook post

, which included a screenshot of the contract.
On Aug 11, Health Minister Ong Ye Kung, who oversees the ward where the hawker centre is located, said on Facebook that hawkers did not face penalties if they did not provide the meals.

However, a 2022 contract shown to the media, including The Straits Times, indicated that hawkers could chalk up demerit points if they did not provide the meals.

Top stories
Swipe. Select. Stay informed.

Of the 640 people checked during raids a day earlier, 115 people aged 17 to 61 years old were caught for vape-related offences.
Singapore

Over 280 vapes seized, more than 640 people checked by police, HSA in anti-vape raids at nightspots
SBS Transit staff working on recovering a stalled LRT train at Meridian LRT station at 11.48am on Aug 15.
Singapore

SPLRT disruption: 28km of cables to be tested during off-service hours; works to end by Aug 23
Singapore’s GDP growth hit 4.3 per cent year-on-year in the first half of 2025, which is stronger than expected.
Singapore

First-half GDP boost likely temporary; Republic must stay relevant amid challenges: Chan Chun Sing
Mr Raay Lim started live selling durians on TikTok in 2023.
Life

Six-figure sales each durian season: Why S’pore durian sellers are now live selling on TikTok
The three-tiered luggage rack can safely store up to six large pieces of luggage.
Singapore

Airport-bound public bus to be fitted with luggage rack in 3-month trial: LTA
The cap on the intake of international students hurts the profitability of Australian universities.
Asia

Australian universities slash staff, courses as rising wages and foreign student curbs bite
(From left) Mr Linus Lin, Ms Ho Meng Yeng and Mr Ivan Lim pictured with their O-Level certificates on Aug 5.
Life

Meet the tutors who take O-level exams every year to create a ‘war mate’ bond with their students
(Clockwise from left) Chef Stephan Zoisl from Chef's Tavern, Chef Paul Longworth from Encore by Rhubarb, and Mr Hong Junchen (left), owner of Dayu Seafood, and Lye Han Bin, who runs Gyoren.
Life

Pivot or perish: How Singapore restaurants are giving diners what they want
ST had earlier reported

in June 2024

that tenants at Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre have to participate in a “Belanja A Meal” programme, which required them to set aside 100 meals for the needy at their own cost.
In that report, 25 hawkers from socially conscious enterprise hawker centres (SEHCs), including Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre, told ST that their livelihood is becoming less sustainable, with a host of responsibilities that include the need to shield lower-income families from rising costs.

Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre on Aug 15 said that it acknowledged that participation in charitable causes should be voluntary.

It reiterated its position stated in its Aug 12 post, that when stall applications opened three years ago, the initiative had been incorporated into tenancy agreements to differentiate applications and “select the hawkers who shared our vision to contribute back to the community”.

Before the hawker centre opened in 2022, the management had attracted “overwhelming” interest, with nine applicants for each available stall.

The management’s Aug 12 post said it “significantly reduced” the number of meals under the Pay-It-Forward programme from 30 meals a month to 100 meals over the three-year tenancy period, following discussions with the stallholders after the hawker centre opened.

Even so, the programme has not officially started, as the management has not done the preparatory work to identify low-income residents and track their eligibility.

“While hawkers have voluntarily agreed to participate at the point of selection, we also acknowledged the view that charity should not be contractual, and this is something to be reviewed again when the Pay-It-Forward programme is ready,” it added.

On Aug 15, the management further shared that it held back from implementing the initiative as some hawkers had said they may not be able to fulfil their commitments, even though they would have liked to “if their circumstances had been better”.

It added: “We also learnt that in the constituency we are in, the concept of the meal assistance programme is called ‘Belanja A Meal’, (and it) relies on voluntary contributions from patrons, instead of hawkers.”

The management noted that no hawkers have been penalised for not providing free meals under the tenancy agreements, and said it did not intend to enforce the obligation in the future. “This is a commitment we are making publicly.”

The management said that it will work with hawkers to offer “affordable value meals”, and that its hawkers “are not expected to make a loss selling value meals”.

It said: “We remain committed to fostering a caring community while ensuring fairness for our hawkers, and will continue to engage openly with tenants and the public as we refine the programme”.

The SEHC model was started in 2011 when the Government resumed building hawker centres. The scheme had the aim of helping a new breed of hawker centres succeed, by ensuring good visitorship, a diverse food mix that responds to evolving needs, and long-term viability.

Discussion about whether the model was the right way forward sparked debate in Parliament in November 2018.

Following that, the National Environment Agency introduced a series of changes aimed at easing the constraints on hawkers.
 
We have so many hawker centres in Singapore, did all hawkers encounter and sign the contract with same contractual terms as this Bukit Canberra Hawker centre?
Bukit Canberra Hawker centre might be just a tip of the iceberg, many more hidden issues yet to he exposed!
the internet sleuths should name names,..
 
KF Seetoh's Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre Controversy Explained - KUANYEWISM
KF Seetoh’s Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre Controversy Explained
Posted byby ChinHan
August 14, 2025
KF Seetoh, a prominent advocate for Singapore’s hawker culture, raised concerns about the management of Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre (BCHC), run by Canopy Hawkers Group. He highlighted two main issues.

First, he claimed hawkers were being charged $70 per month for the use of a small space, called a “blue basket” or Backyard Cluster, where suppliers leave daily orders.


Second, he pointed out that hawkers were contractually obligated to provide 60 free charity meals per month and sell budget $3-3.50 meals to all customers, regardless of income, including wealthy patrons.


Source: KF Seetoh Facebook
Seetoh argued that charity should be voluntary, not enforced through contracts, and that these practices could threaten the sustainability of hawker livelihoods.

Government and Management Response

Minister Ong Ye Kung and Canopy Hawkers responded to clarify some of the claims. They stated that there is no $70 charge for the blue baskets and that the free meal scheme exists in contracts but is currently voluntary and unenforced.


Initially, hawkers had agreed to provide 30 free meals per month, later revised to 100 meals over three years, and the initiative had not yet started. Hawkers themselves confirmed awareness of these contract clauses when signing their leases and generally found the requirements reasonable, although some expressed concern about rising costs and affordability.

Seetoh’s Pushback and Broader Concerns
Seetoh emphasized that the contracts explicitly use the word “shall,” making the free meal obligation legally binding. While unenforced for now, operators could implement it at any time, potentially affecting hawker income.

He also presented evidence of the $70 Backyard Cluster charge and argued that charity should remain voluntary, not mandated by contract.


For Seetoh, these issues reflect a broader systemic problem with how socially responsible hawker centres are managed, impacting hawker livelihoods, public affordability, and the sustainability of Singapore’s UNESCO-recognized hawker culture.

The Penalty Is Real – Hawkers can be fined if they do not take part in the pay-it-forward program
On 14 August 2025, Zaobao published an article which detailed the contracts further, explaining that violations could result in fines or penalty points, though enforcement is not active.


The Bigger Picture
Seetoh argued that this debate is about more than $70 charges or charity meals. It highlights a systemic challenge: ensuring fair management of hawker centres, preserving hawker livelihoods, maintaining affordable food for the public, and safeguarding Singapore’s unique culinary heritage.

He proposed a collaborative effort involving government, hawkers, food experts, historians, and the public to create a comprehensive guide or rulebook for socially responsible hawker centre management. This system would prioritize transparency, sustainability, and fairness, benefiting all stakeholders rather than creating division.

A Call for Greater Transparency
This situation underscores the need for clearer, more transparent guidelines for social enterprise hawker centre management. Contracts and obligations should be fully disclosed and explained to hawkers and the public, ensuring that charity, pricing, and operational requirements are fair, reasonable, and voluntary wherever possible. Only through transparency and collaboration can Singapore’s hawker culture remain vibrant, sustainable, and inclusive for generations to come.

1 minute read
1 minute read
1 minute read
 
Who Owns & Operates Hawker Centres, Coffee Shops & Food Courts In Singapore? | DollarsAndSense Business
by
August 17, 2025
4 minute read

The past week has been spicy for Singapore’s F&B scene, thanks to a viral Facebook post by popular food critic and Makansutra founder, Kf Seetoh. His remarks on hawker centre policies and operations stirred the pot, drawing a public reply from Minister Ong Ye Kung and sparking a chain reaction of follow-up posts, clarifications and investigations from various parties.

We won’t recap all of these, but you can check the original posts made by Kf Seetoh, Minister Ong Ye Kung, and Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre, to form your own view.

But this episode got us thinking: what exactly do hawker centres represent in our society? Are they a public good, facilities meant to be accessible and beneficial to all, or are they platforms designed to promote food culture and entrepreneurship? And how do they differ from other Singaporean dining spots, such as coffee shops and food courts, which are also part of our shared food heritage?

Who Owns The Hawker Centres In Singapore?
Typically open-air in nature, hawker centres are an integral part of Singapore’s national identity and heritage. Iconic spots such as Newton Food Centre, Maxwell Food Centre, and Zion Riverside Food Centre have not only fed generations of Singaporeans with some of the best local fare but have also become popular tourist attractions, drawing throngs of visitors each day who are eager to experience the quintessential Singapore food culture.

Some hawker centres are co-located with markets. For example, Geylang Serai Market and Tiong Bahru Market house hawker centres alongside wet market stalls, creating a one-stop hub for fresh produce and affordable cooked meals.

The History Of Hawker Centres
Hawkers in Singapore were originally street food vendors, plying their trade along roadsides and back alleys. In the 1960s, as part of efforts to improve food hygiene and provide proper facilities for preparation and dining, the government relocated these vendors into purpose-built hawker centres. It’s no surprise, then, that hawker centres in Singapore are owned and largely operated by the government.

Today, the National Environment Agency (NEA), a statutory board under the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE), plays a leading role in managing and enhancing hawker centres. Some are managed directly by NEA, while others fall under the purview of the respective town councils.

Regardless of who manages them, one thing is clear: hawker centres in Singapore can be seen as a public good, and they exist to serve the community they are in, providing affordable meals for all, and to preserve our food heritage.

This is somewhat different from food courts and many coffee shops, many of which are privately owned and commercially operated.

Food Courts and Coffee Shops. Same Local Flavours With Different Purposes?
While food courts and coffee shops may serve similar dishes to hawker centres, think chicken rice, laksa, or fried kway teow, their role in Singapore’s food landscape is quite different.

Food courts are usually located in shopping malls or office buildings. These are operated by private companies that lease space to food vendors, with their own branding, layout and operational guidelines. They tend to offer a more comfortable, air-conditioned dining environment, but this comes with higher operating costs that are often reflected in menu prices. Examples of popular coffee shop operators will include Food Junction.

Coffee shops are typically found in residential neighbourhoods and act as an in-between for hawker centres and food courts. In Singapore, some coffeeshops are owned by HDB while others are privately owned. They usually house a drinks stall and several cooked food stalls, with each vendor paying rent to the coffee shop operator. Examples of popular coffee shop operators will include Kimly.

Is There A Difference In Mission & Values Between Hawker Centres & Their Hawkers?
One recurring question from this saga is whether the hawker-tenants in government-run hawker centres should be expected to do “charity” or “good” as part of their operations. Running an F&B stall is already challenging — with rent, rising ingredient costs, labour shortages, and demanding, price-sensitive customers. Yet, beyond simply staying afloat, hawkers are sometimes expected to provide “budget meals” or even offer “pay-it-forward” options for those in need.

Is this too much?

Perhaps the issue also stems from a difference in expectations. As discussed earlier, hawker centres can be seen as a public good, serving the communities in which they are located. Some operators, such as NTUC Foodfare, are social enterprises with a stated mission to provide affordable, quality cooked food in Singapore. It stands to reason that this mission may also extend to the hawker centres they manage.

By extension, tenants within these hawker centres should ideally share and support that same mission, or at least, be aware of the mission that the hawker centres operators have. Otherwise, there is a risk of misalignment between the operator’s objectives and the hawkers’ own business priorities, which can lead to tension over pricing, menu offerings and the broader role hawker centres play in society.

Not All Food Spaces Are the Same
Finally, it’s easy for us as Singaporeans to think hawker centres, coffee shops and food courts are all the same. After all, they serve similar food and look somewhat alike, with most of us only caring about price, quality and convenience.

But in reality, they’re quite different. Hawker centres are publicly built and run with the goal of keeping meals affordable and serving the community, while food courts and (some) coffee shops are privately operated, often focusing on providing convenience, comfort and variety to customers. Understanding this can help us understand why expectations, such as offering budget meals and discounts, are applied differently across them.

Photo Credit: iStock/annop24

Subscribe To The DollarsAndSense Business Pass
Enjoy what you are reading and want more? Join The DollarsAndSense Business Pass and unlock access to valuable tools, exclusive networking opportunities, and tap into the wisdom of industry experts to fuel your business expansion!
 
The irony is the use of the word value meal when it's just egg n carbs ...where is the value in that?


Why should we bear the burden of budget meals and app discounts, some S’pore hawkers ask
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox

Hawkers say app should be a value-added service by the operator and costs should not be passed on.
Hawkers at Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre are expected to offer app discounts and budget meals.

PHOTO: SHIN MIN DAILY NEWS

avatar-alt
Published Aug 20, 2025, 06:00 PM

Updated Aug 21, 2025, 07:21 AM

SINGAPORE – When Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre’s management announced it would scrap clauses requiring hawkers to provide free meals for the needy at their own cost, the update was met with relief by hawkers. But many question why they continue to be called upon to provide budget meals and discounts to diners who pay using operator apps.

The Pay-it-Forward initiative by Canopy Hawkers Group, which manages the Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centre (SEHC), initially required stallholders to contribute 100 free meals over three years.

It was criticised by veteran food critic K.F. Seetoh in an Aug 8 Facebook post that described it as “forced charity”. Health Minister Ong Ye Kung – who oversees the ward where the hawker centre is located –

waded into the debate on Aug 11

, writing on Facebook that hawkers did not face penalties if they did not provide the meals.
However, copies of the contract shown to the media, including The Straits Times, indicated that hawkers could chalk up demerit points for failing to provide the meals. The management team later said on Aug 15 that it would not enforce the obligation in the future.

“Some stalls are not doing well, so it’s better not to force them,” says John (not his real name), a hawker in his 50s, who runs one of the 44 stalls there. Like many of the tenants ST spoke to, he declined to reveal his name for fear of repercussions from his operator.

Another hawker, who is also in his 50s, adds: “Doing charity is voluntary, not by force.”

But many hawkers lament that they are still obliged to provide budget meals under $3.50 and pay for discounts given to diners using operator apps.

Top stories
Swipe. Select. Stay informed.

An Israeli tank manoeuvres in Gaza as seen from the Israeli side of the border, Israel on Aug 20.
Israel says it has taken first steps of military operation in Gaza City
After the three boys had issued threats, they were immediately suspended.
Singapore

3 Sengkang Green Primary pupils suspended for bullying classmate, with 1 of them caned: MOE
The two-day sting, which started on Aug 19, saw 18 persons between the ages of 24 and 48 nabbed for vape-related offences.
Singapore

18 persons nabbed and 82 vapes seized in HSA ops in Raffles Place and Haji Lane
In June, Pop Mart launched snack-themed Labubu dolls, which drew a queue of some 160 fans at its Ion Orchard store, with some showing up even before dawn.
Business

Chinese brands like Pop Mart, BYD, Joocyee expanding into S’pore as gateway to Asean market
IPS found that over three-quarters of Singaporeans agreed that their ideas about religion or spirituality were one of the most important parts of their lives.
Singapore

Religion growing in importance for Singaporeans: IPS study
hfnz - Headmaster of privately-run Scots College Graeme Yule welcomed the reforms for adding more rigour and competition into the system.

Photo: Scots College
Asia

‘Disastrous, useless’: New Zealand to overhaul high school qualification to lift falling standards
Pixel 10 prices start at US$799 (S$1,027), with the Pixel Pro Fold model starting at $1,799.
World

Google unveils latest Pixel 10 phones packed with AI
Absorbing discounts
A 2022 version of the contract seen by The Straits Times states that hawkers could face three demerit points and $30 in liquidated damages for “failure to use Bukit Canberra HC mobile apps for customers to place orders, make payment”.

Hawkers say the app was intended for the convenience of customers and should be a value-added service by the operator.

“Its cost should not be passed on to the tenants,” says John, who has to absorb the 10 per cent discount customers get from the Food Canopy app. “Hawker prices are controlled and many have thin margins due to rising costs. This just makes things harder.”

In response to ST’s queries, Canopy Hawkers Group says the loyalty programme, which provides a 10 per cent rebate for customers paying through its app, is meant to encourage repeat customers and support hawkers’ business.

A similar arrangement has been rolled out at hawker centres run by FairPrice Group and Timbre Group.

Customers who pay using the app enjoy a 10 per cent discount on meals at One Punggol Hawker Centre and Yishun Park Hawker Centre, according to Timbre Group’s website.

“We lose a thousand dollars every month from the Timbre app,” says a 42-year-old who wanted to be known only as Rahman. He sells rojak and prata at One Punggol. However, he concedes that it was something he had agreed to when signing the contract.

Mr Yasser Farag, who runs Arabica Kebab stall in the same centre, was also prepared to offer concessions to customers, though the number of discounts caught him by surprise.

“I knew I had to keep prices low, but I didn’t expect so many people to have the app,” says the 58-year-old, who maintains that his experience at the hawker centre has otherwise been smooth.

Another hawker, who is in her late 50s, says prevalent usage of the app costs her around a thousand dollars each month. With the price of ingredients and utilities rising, her earnings have been shaved by a fifth. “I can’t afford to raise prices either, because I empathise with customers,” she adds.

Echoing the same sentiment is Ms Kumiko Tan, 44, owner of Hakka Leipopo, a chain with outlets in SEHCs, such as Anchorvale Village Hawker Centre and Punggol Coast Hawker Centre, both run by FairPrice Group.

“Times are hard for everyone. We won’t change the price of food to account for the discount,” she says. The cost of her dishes remains consistent across all outlets, even the one at the Tanjong Pagar Town Council-run Bukit Merah View Market & Hawker Centre.

Roughly 80 per cent of her customers at Anchorvale Village and Punggol Coast pay with the FairPrice Group app, which yields a 10 per cent discount. She adds: “I don’t think many of them know that the discount is paid for by the store owner. They think maybe it’s from the Government or the operator.”


Discounts offered through FairPrice Group app on display at Anchorvale Village Hawker Centre. ST PHOTO: CHERIE LOK
But some hawkers, like a 38-year-old man operating a stall at Anchorvale Village Hawker Centre, feel the 10 per cent cut is fair, as the app helps boost business. “It’s a perk that, in a way, attracts customers,” he says.

How cheap is too cheap
The discount, however, cannot be applied to budget meals, which are low-cost dishes that tenants at SEHCs are obliged to offer – contractually, in the case of Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre’s tenants, at least.

At hawker centres operated by FairPrice Group, these affordable options are usually priced between $3 and $3.50, according to checks by ST.

Adam (not his real name), a hawker who runs a stall at Hawker Centre @ Our Tampines Hub, says that $3.50 is a manageable price point for budget meals. When

ST spoke to him in June 2024

, his budget meals were fixed at $2.80.
Back then, a spokesperson for operator FairPrice Group confirmed budget meals at that particular hawker centre cost $2.80, but that the company was conducting a review.

Since the budget meal price has increased to $3.50, Adam says it is “much more reasonable”. “At least now, I can make around 20 to 30 cents in profit for each meal,” he adds. He previously told ST it was “impossible to make a profit” from $2.80 meals.

“I can’t make money off of it, but maybe only five to 10 people each month buy my budget meals, so still can tahan (endure in Malay),” adds a 45-year-old hawker, who wants to be known only as Hasan, at Buangkok Hawker Centre.

Doing charity, encouraging healthy eating, adhering to onerous rules: Is too much being asked of hawkers?
But Penang Alley’s $3.20 budget meals are snapped up by some 50 customers each month. Mrs Eileen Leong, the 57-year-old owner of the Buangkok Hawker Centre stall, says such meals, which consist of mainly eggs and kway teow, are “unsustainable”.

She tried asking her operator, Fei Siong Social Enterprise, to increase the budget meal price to $4 without success. With operation costs spiking 50 per cent and footfall down three-quarters by her estimates, she is seeking a reprieve.

In response to queries from ST, the National Environment Agency (NEA) reiterated what then-Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment Koh Poh Koon said in a November 2024 parliamentary address: Such value meals only account for 5 to 20 per cent of meals sold in SEHCs.

Portions, according to hawkers, tend to be smaller and often omit more expensive proteins such as meat.

“Hawkers are not expected to make a loss selling value meals as they would have taken into the consideration of its impact in their rentals when applying for the stalls. Moreover, 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,” said NEA’s spokesperson, citing the case of Ci Yuan Hawker Centre in Hougang, where the price was reviewed and adjusted based on feedback from operators and hawkers.

Canopy Hawkers Group, likewise, adds that food prices are adjusted from time to time, in discussion with tenants.

According to NEA, in 2023, the median monthly stall rental at SEHCs and non-subsidised stalls at comparable NEA-managed hawker centres were $1,700 and $1,625 respectively. Ancillary costs at SEHCs, such as table-cleaning and centralised dishwashing fees, are comparable with similar NEA-managed hawker centres, it added.

The agency also assists hawkers financially through schemes such as the Hawkers’ Productivity Grant, which provides 80 per cent co-funding for hawkers to buy kitchen automation equipment and digital solutions such as queue management systems.

ST has contacted the relevant operators for more information. Timbre Group declined to comment, while FairPrice Group and Fei Siong Social Enterprise did not respond by press time.
 
Fucking PAP created a high cost of living society and they themselves pay themselves well and expect ordinary Singaporeans to bear the brunt of high living costs amongst themselves. Vote for PAP lah. Kumgong sinkies.
 
KF Seetoh escalates SEHC criticism, citing unfair clauses and double standards in hawker contracts
KF Seetoh renews critique of SEHC contracts: operators like Timbre impose 15% sales cuts, costly clauses, and invasive surveillance, while NEA contracts remain simpler. He calls for a full rethink of Singapore’s hawker centre governance.


Published

on

24 August 2025
Singapore’s veteran food critic and hawker culture advocate KF Seetoh has intensified his criticism of the social enterprise hawker centre (SEHC) model, describing it as fundamentally flawed and exploitative.

In a strongly worded Facebook post on 23 August 2025, Seetoh accused SEHC operators of profiteering under the guise of social responsibility, calling their tenancy contracts “oppressive” and “terrifying”.

His remarks follow mounting public concern over the structure and governance of SEHCs, and in particular, the role of private operators like Timbre Group and Canopy Hawkers Group.

Seetoh has called for a complete overhaul of the SEHC system and urged the National Environment Agency (NEA) and Singapore Food Agency (SFA) to initiate structural reforms.

From clause to controversy: Canopy’s charity meal requirement

The current debate was sparked by KF Seetoh’s earlier Facebook post highlighting that hawkers at Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre were contractually required to provide charity meals — a claim that was publicly denied by Health Minister Ong Ye Kung, who said no penalties would be imposed for non-participation.

Seetoh’s allegation prompted Lianhe Zaobao to investigate, and the newspaper later verified his claim by reviewing the actual tenancy contracts issued by Canopy Hawkers Group.

The documents confirmed that hawkers could face six demerit points and a S$50 fine per breach for failing to participate in the “Pay It Forward” charity meal scheme. Accumulating 24 points within a year could result in lease termination.


This clause directly contradicted earlier public statements by Health Minister Ong Ye Kung, who had said there were “no penalties” for hawkers who did not participate.

Canopy later issued a clarification in light of the public outcry, stating that the clause had not been enforced and would be excluded from future contracts. However, the clause remains binding in existing contracts.

Seetoh in his latest post said, “It’s not the hawkers’ duty to feed the poor and destitute. If you cannot afford a meal, please see your MP for help.”

He argued that charity should be voluntary, not enforced by contract, and questioned how such conditions were ever approved for use in public hawker centres.

Seetoh turns to Timbre: “Another rotten leaf in the forest”
Following Canopy’s clarification about the charity clause, Seetoh shifted focus to another SEHC operator: Timbre Group, which manages Yishun Park Hawker Centre. Using images of the tenancy agreement signed by stallholders, Seetoh highlighted what he described as even more alarming contract terms.

According to the agreement, Timbre collects 15% of a stall’s gross turnover, capped at S$2,550 and subject to a minimum base. Hawkers must also pay a monthly fixed rent, service charges, and additional administrative fees.


Seetoh described the setup as a model that punishes success: “They collect rent, and conveniently take 15% from successful hawkers.”

Hawkers are also required to use Timbre’s approved POS system, pay vector control fees, subscribe to data services, and even use gas providers designated by the landlord, despite hawkers’ protests over higher prices.

What disturbed Seetoh most was the presence of surveillance cameras in each stall, which he claims can record audio as well as video.

These systems, together with mandatory POS reporting, allow the operator to monitor every transaction in real time.


Adding to this are 18 categories of S$100 fines, which hawkers can incur for a variety of violations — such as refusing to accept the centre’s loyalty app, failing to enter data into the POS system, or even discussing internal matters publicly without permission.

“Timbre’s 25-page contract rules and regulations are terrifying,” Seetoh wrote. “Help them, if they are recalcitrant then warn, before you issue penalties.”

Double standards in hawker governance?
Seetoh’s broader concern is not simply about individual operators, but what he sees as inconsistent standards between Government-run hawker centres and those managed by private social enterprise operators under NEA’s appointment.

In the same post, Seetoh shared pages from a six-page NEA tenancy contract used in hawker centres directly managed by the Government. He noted that while these still contain regulations on cleanliness, licensing, and pricing — they do not contain the commercial terms, punitive structures, or surveillance found in SEHC contracts.

He asked pointedly, “NEA’s own-managed Centres has only six pages. It’s restrictive enough yet leaves a lot of wiggle space for hawkers to thrive. Why the double standards… eludes me.”

Seetoh argued that many hawkers sign SEHC contracts without legal advice or close scrutiny, trusting in the Government’s endorsement of these operators. Yet, what they encounter instead is a quasi-corporate structure that restricts their independence while profiting from their labour.

“Hawkers sign on these ‘socially conscious’ contracts because it’s approved by a Government they trust. No questions asked,” he wrote.

Call for reform: A fresh structure, new leadership
Seetoh concluded his remarks by calling for a “whole-of-nation effort” to reform the SEHC system. He suggested that NEA and SFA either overhaul the current model or form a new agency made up of independent experts, professionals, and hawker advocates who can chart a more equitable path forward.

“NEA, please go revisit your duties to the public and revise these egregious SEHC systems. It’s clearly not working,” he stated.

As of now, neither NEA nor Timbre has responded publicly to the specific clauses highlighted in Seetoh’s post. The issue remains under active public scrutiny.

SEHC vs shared NEA contract: Key differences
CategoryTimbre Group (SEHC)NEA-managed Centre
Contract length25–28 pages6 pages
Rent structure15% of gross monthly turnover (capped), or S$1,750 fixed rent — whichever is higherS$1,055 fixed rent only
Service chargesS$750/month, plus POS system rental, vector control, gas via approved providerS$140/month for conservancy and service
Operational requirementsMandatory $3 meal and calorie guidelines; must operate 5 days/week, 2 meals/dayBasic hygiene and notification of closures only
SurveillanceMandatory POS use, real-time sales data access, CCTV in stallsNo mandated surveillance or monitoring tools
Penalties18 S$100 fines listed (e.g., POS non-use, app rejection, publicity)Minimal, only related to hygiene/licensing breaches
Supplier controlMust use operator-approved gas supplier and POS vendorNo vendor lock-in or utility constraints
Closure/leave rulesWritten permission needed for any day offNotify NEA only if closed for >7 days
Share this:
 
Calls grow to pressure govt to relook SEHC model to avoid hawkers 'getting bullied by landlord'

On 23 August 2025, Singapore’s food critic and hawker culture advocate KF Seetoh renewed his attack on the social enterprise hawker centre (SEHC) model.

He described the system as “fundamentally flawed” and warned that it enabled landlords to exploit hawkers.

His post quickly went viral on Facebook, drawing widespread discussion across social media.

Many comments online agreed that the current framework is unsustainable and urged the government to step in to prevent further exploitation of hawkers.

KF Seetoh escalates SEHC criticism, citing unfair clauses and double standards in hawker contracts
In his latest remarks, Seetoh accused SEHC operators of profiteering under the banner of social responsibility.

He labelled tenancy agreements as “oppressive” and “terrifying”, highlighting restrictive clauses and high charges.

According to Seetoh, hawkers were unfairly subjected to revenue-sharing, additional fees, and obligations that placed financial and operational strain on small food businesses.

Allegations over charity meal penalties confirmed
The current wave of criticism stems from Seetoh’s earlier post about Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre.

He claimed that hawkers were required by contract to provide charity meals.

Health Minister Ong Ye Kung denied penalties would be imposed. However, Chinese daily Lianhe Zaobao later reviewed contracts from Canopy Hawkers Group and confirmed Seetoh’s claims.

The documents showed that hawkers could receive six demerit points and a S$50 fine for failing to participate in the “Pay It Forward” meal scheme.

Accumulating 24 points in a year could result in termination of lease agreements.

Focus shifts to Timbre Group’s tenancy terms
Following this revelation, Seetoh turned his focus to Timbre Group, which manages Yishun Park Hawker Centre.

Sharing images of contracts, he criticised what he called even more alarming clauses.

According to the agreement, Timbre collects 15% of a stall’s gross turnover, capped at S$2,550 or subject to a minimum base of S$1,750 for rental of the stall, service charges of S$900 (excluding GST), and additional administrative fees.

Seetoh described this as a model that punishes success, stating: “They collect rent, and conveniently take 15% from successful hawkers.”


Hawkers were also obliged to use Timbre’s approved POS systems, pay for vector control and data services, and source gas from designated providers, often at higher costs.

In contrast, hawkers operating in centres managed directly by the National Environment Agency (NEA) face far simpler six-page contracts.

These contracts involve straightforward rental terms, with no revenue-sharing arrangements or complex operational restrictions.

Seetoh argued that the disparity highlighted the dangers of outsourcing management to private-style operators.

He called for structural reforms led by the NEA and the Singapore Food Agency (SFA).

Professor Tommy Koh: We must not allow landlords to bully hawkers
The controversy has drawn support from prominent academics and economists.

Professor Tommy Koh, special adviser at the Institute of Policy Studies, and Former GIC chief economist Yeoh Lam Keong both expressed gratitude to Seetoh for raising the issue.

Prof Koh emphasised that Singapore must not allow landlords to exploit hawkers.

Recounting his visit to the Tampines Hub hawker centre, Koh said he was shocked to learn that contracts allegedly obliged hawkers to operate round the clock. “I told the CEO that the term was unreasonable and I was opposed to it,” he remarked.


Public demand for a return to government oversight
Many online comments criticised the SEHC system as a commercialised version of hawker management, resembling the way real estate investment trusts manage shopping malls.

Critics argued that hawker centres should be under direct government oversight, not private operators.

Outsourcing, they said, had blurred the distinction between community hawker centres and commercial food courts, undermining the original social purpose of hawker culture.


The debate over SEHCs has also become tied to wider concerns about inequality and rising living costs in Singapore.

Some lamented that hawkers in the past benefited from affordable rentals that allowed them to run sustainable family businesses.

Today, they argued, financial pressures have grown, with hawkers increasingly squeezed by complex fees and obligations.


Others pointed to what they saw as contradictions between the government’s promotion of hawker culture as intangible heritage and the realities of rising costs and restrictive contracts.


Some highlighted that Edward Chia, a Member of Parliament from the ruling People’s Action Party, is the former chief executive of Timbre.

According to his party profile, Chia co-founded Timbre to support Singaporean musicians in building sustainable careers, an initiative that earned him the STB Tourism Entrepreneur of the Year Award.



Wider systemic issues raised
The online debate also connected the hawker centre controversy to wider structural challenges facing Singapore.

Reddit users linked it to rising housing costs, job outsourcing, and the overall high cost of living.

One widely shared comment described the situation as part of a “landlord economy” model, arguing that hawkers’ struggles were symptomatic of deeper economic trends in the country.


Share this:
 
The SEHC scheme has been around for more than 10 years and the govt easily gives them the right to run the HCs. However, if you look at the arguments put forth by the Bukit Canberra HC management, they are saying all the "benefits" to be provided to the needy have not been started. In this case, they have been acting only as a landlord since they started operations.

Who is overseeing this scheme? what are the criteria for maintaining their right to run the HC? If there are no Social benefits given back to the community, they should be removed from being eligible to run the HCs and let someone who has the ability to start and run the HCs
 
KF Seetoh: It's not the hawkers’ duty to feed the poor and destitute - Singapore News

Depositphotos/sasimoto + FB/KF Seetoh Page
By
arrow_forward_ios
Read More
SINGAPORE: In a social media post over the weekend, food guru KF Seetoh clocked a “teeny weeny win for hawker kind,” as he described it. A longtime champion of Singapore’s hawker culture, he has lately been vocal against requiring hawkers, a significant number of whom are struggling to make their businesses profitable, to provide free meals as part of the social enterprise hawker centre (SEHC) model.

“It’s not the hawkers’ duty to feed the poor and destitute. If you cannot afford a meal, please see your MP for help…. It’s a whole-of-nation effort to lift our poor out of the doldrums,” he wrote in an Aug 23 (Saturday) Facebook post but noted that it’s been announced by the Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre operator that the clause requiring stallholders to provide free meals will be removed. The hawker centre is operated by Canopy Hawkers Group.

The Makansutra owner also expressed the hope that the National Environment Agency (NEA), which appoints operators to manage 22 hawker centres, as well as the Singapore Food Agency (SFA), are “relooking the whole system.”

“I hope they resolve it and let us find no reason to revisit these issues,” he wrote, pointing out as well that hawkers agree to “’socially conscious’ contracts because it’s approved by a government they trust.”

Having marked the win at Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre, he went on to call out another operator, alleging that it takes “15 per cent of total sales from successful hawkers, otherwise they pay basic rents and all sorts of fees.”

He noted that these centres not only provide entry-level business opportunities for hawkers but also serve the community. However, since they are built by the government, which also pays operators to manage them, this type of dealings is “not right,” he believes. The food guru also claimed that this operator installs CCTV cameras to monitor sales more strictly and shared a list of fines for stallholders, which cost S$100 per violation. According to Mr Seetoh, it would be better to help the hawkers, and if they are recalcitrant, warn them first before imposing penalties.

He addressed the NEA in his post, asking them to revisit their duties and revise the SEHC system, as “it’s clearly not working. You need a big rethink and even a fresh department or agency consisting of indie thinkers, advocates, experts, and professionals to help you to do this.”

Mr Seetoh’s post has since been shared over 600 times, and even well-known figures have commented on it.

“Thank you for speaking up for our hawkers. We must not allow their landlords to bully them,” noted diplomat and lawyer Tommy Koh.

Singapore’s “Toilet King” Jack Sim, meanwhile, asked, “If they are imposing so much fines on these Hawkers, why is it that the SFA did not impose fines on wealthy coffee shop owners with continuously dirty toilets? Is there some favouritism here?” /TISG
 
The SEHC scheme has been around for more than 10 years and the govt easily gives them the right to run the HCs. However, if you look at the arguments put forth by the Bukit Canberra HC management, they are saying all the "benefits" to be provided to the needy have not been started. In this case, they have been acting only as a landlord since they started operations.

Who is overseeing this scheme? what are the criteria for maintaining their right to run the HC? If there are no Social benefits given back to the community, they should be removed from being eligible to run the HCs and let someone who has the ability to start and run the HCs
The bigger question should me...what is the Definition of Social Enterprise and what is the obligation of Management? Bcos for social enterprises..Management have a cap on 'surpluses'
 
The bigger question should me...what is the Definition of Social Enterprise and what is the obligation of Management? Bcos for social enterprises..Management have a cap on 'surpluses'
Is FairPrice a social enterprise? If yes, then you got the answer@
 
Back
Top