If paying more means better quality and better hawkers, then I dont mind.
What's wrong with not paying more than $5? Even $4 I consider expensive for hawker fare. The idea is to eat the best food at the lowest price and there are still many places for that. Spend yr money in aircon food courts, and you are paying more for overheads to the landlords without remunerating the poor chap cooking the dishes and renting the stalls.
Even $4 I consider expensive for hawker fare. The idea is to eat the best food at the lowest price and there are still many places for that.
Probably, $1.50 to $2.00 goes towards the rental for a $5.00 food. Decent and reasonable hawker is still available. I have come across one stall, that sells fishball noodle for $2.00. These are a dying breed, as long as NEA do not come out with those funny ideas to upgrade (means higher rental) the hawker centre, will the food prices be reasonable.
Considering this . It will continue to be a dying trend since
rentals are sky rocketing . If you are not helping them .
Then dismal not if it were to disappear one day altogether .
For $2.00 you dare to eat . Those tested it's ok .
For most will just downgrade the quality of ingredients and the type of fish used to compensate for the patron's reluctance to pay more .
If future if it ever gets worst, they will just use ikan billis
You really going to get what you pay for !
The article you quoted is about transmission of food culture and not really about sustaining the hawker industry or keeping them subsidised or alive per se.
Then back to the old days of street side hawkers and string baskets .
It is really about sustaining oneself through street hawkering.
Through the merit of being affordable and tasty that the hawker get
constant support from patrons .