- Joined
- Jul 16, 2008
- Messages
- 26,148
- Points
- 113
[Sg] - OYK says KF Seetoh is talking nonsense
- Thread starter UltimaOnline
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 108,291
- Points
- 113
That's a fake hawker centre, managed by a F&B crony of the PAP regime.
#4 Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre
Hawker Centres Managed by NEA-appointed Operators
https://www.nea.gov.sg/corporate-fu...er-centres-managed-by-nea-appointed-operators#4 Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 108,291
- Points
- 113
Most of the world's hell ministers during the Covid scamdemic were like that. All obey Uncle Tedros.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 31,010
- Points
- 113
I hope Shitoh covers himself by presenting the receipt of the 70 bucks basket rental fee..
CNA’s Bukit Canberra coverage addressed Ong Ye Kung’s ‘basket’ framing, not KF Seetoh’s original claim
A CNA report on Bukit Canberra’s S$70 charge repeated the hawker centre operator’s denial of a “blue basket” fee — a claim KF Seetoh never made. His actual point was about space rental, but the story focused on rebutting Ong Ye Kung’s misquote, making him seem inaccurate.
Published
on
13 August 2025
A public dispute over charges at Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre has developed into a case of how political statements and subsequent media coverage can reshape the framing of an issue.
On 4 August 2024, veteran food critic KF Seetoh posted that hawkers were charged S$70 a month “just to use that space” where suppliers leave their orders.
He did not say hawkers were charged specifically for “blue baskets” — a phrase absent from his post and contradicted by an invoice showing a “TOL [Temporary Occupation Licence] Rented – Backyard Cluster” fee.
However, in a Facebook post on 11 August, Sembawang GRC MP Ong Ye Kung restated the claim as: “hawkers are charged $70 a month for the use of a blue basket to store their supplies.” He stated this was “not true”, but did not specify how or from whom he had obtained this information.
The report quoted Canopy Hawkers Group managing director Joey Tan saying the fee applied to permanent fixtures like cabinets or shelves, not to temporary overnight deliveries left in baskets.
By focusing on this rebuttal — which addressed Ong’s “basket” phrasing rather than Seetoh’s original point about space rental — the CNA article appeared to validate the minister’s correction and, by implication, cast doubt on Seetoh’s accuracy.
Seetoh, in a later public response, criticised CNA’s approach:
“I just read CNA’s report… they spoke to hawkers there under the happy watchful eyes of the operators (friendly security cameras) and quoted them too. But the one I respect is ST’s version last year… The hawkers spoke boldly and frankly… mentioned all you heard here, including the blue box rent, plus a lot more… Understandably these hawkers fear reprisals, that’s why they sought confidentiality.”
His statement drew a sharp contrast between CNA’s on-site interviews — which he suggested could be inhibited by the operator’s presence — and an earlier Straits Times investigation where hawkers spoke anonymously off-site, confirming both the space charge and other operational concerns.
In CNA’s report, several hawkers said they only paid the S$70 fee when placing permanent cabinets or shelves, while others said they used baskets temporarily without charge. This was consistent with the operator’s quoted hygiene rationale, but it addressed the “basket” framing from Ong Ye Kung’s post rather than the actual scope of the charge.
If Ong’s “basket” description had originated from the operator, it would have been a masterstroke in narrative management — reframing the dispute in a way that muddled the central issue of chargeable space and set the terms for both ministerial and media responses.
By focusing on baskets, the operator effectively reclassified the matter and sidestepped the fact — not denied in CNA’s reporting — that the same 0.48 square metre “backyard cluster” space is billable under a TOL when used exclusively.
The invoice Seetoh posted confirms this, showing the fee applies regardless of whether the space holds a cabinet or is used for deliveries. This evidence directly supports Seetoh’s original wording and shows the “basket” description originated from Ong’s restatement, not from him.
The charity meal clause — and a deeper theory
Alongside the space charge, Seetoh also drew attention to a clause in hawkers’ contracts requiring them to provide free meals to low-income residents. Ong said this was revised from 60 meals a month to 100 meals over a three-year lease, with no penalties and no implementation yet.
In CNA’s report, hawkers were quoted as saying they accepted the terms when signing their leases, with some considering the number of meals reasonable.
This presentation downplayed the contractual risk, even though the clause remains legally binding. Given that interviews were conducted on-site and in the hawkers’ names, it is unlikely any hawker would openly say they oppose a charity initiative under those conditions.
A theory shared by a Reddit user suggests the “pay-it-forward” scheme was likely part of the operator’s tender proposal, as hawker centre bids must include a “social mission” element. The user argued that once the tender was secured, the operator avoided enforcing the scheme to prevent hawker pushback or closures, but left the obligation in place.
They calculated that the original 60-meal monthly requirement could cost a hawker around S$300 in unsubsidised food each month, on top of other charges such as S$70 for space rental, S$650 for table cleaning, and S$258 for dishwashing — before rent, ingredient costs, and labour.
They questioned why the obligation fell on hawkers rather than the operator, especially since regulations require operators to channel at least 50% of operating surpluses back to hawkers or the community.
Seetoh has maintained that charity meals, if voluntary, should not be written into contracts at all. In his view, leaving such clauses in place — even if unenforced — places hawkers “at the mercy and grace of the operators” and creates a latent obligation that could be used against them.
As with the “basket” narrative, CNA’s framing here echoed the operator’s position while omitting the power dynamics at play — in both cases, leaving unchallenged a contractual or financial burden that hawkers may be reluctant to speak against when interviewed publicly and on-site.
What the documents and charges show
The free meal clause, while currently dormant, remains in contracts — creating a potential future burden if enforced. Both this and the S$70 space charge raise questions about transparency in operator-hawker relationships.
The bigger concern, however, is how the public narrative was shaped.
Minister Ong’s Facebook post reframed KF Seetoh’s “space rental” claim into a “basket” claim and then rebutted it. That reframing has since been used by online astroturfers and partisan commentators to portray Seetoh as dishonest, attacking him personally while sidestepping the underlying issue of chargeable space.
CNA’s report repeated the operator’s denial of the “basket” fee without noting that the “basket” framing originated from Ong’s wording, not from Seetoh.
This sequence — from Ong’s reframing, to the operator’s rebuttal, to CNA’s coverage — created a self-reinforcing loop that treated a minister’s inaccurate restatement as the factual baseline.
In doing so, it left Seetoh’s documented claim unaddressed and the minister’s initial misrepresentation unchallenged.
Share this:
CNA’s Bukit Canberra coverage addressed Ong Ye Kung’s ‘basket’ framing, not KF Seetoh’s original claim
A CNA report on Bukit Canberra’s S$70 charge repeated the hawker centre operator’s denial of a “blue basket” fee — a claim KF Seetoh never made. His actual point was about space rental, but the story focused on rebutting Ong Ye Kung’s misquote, making him seem inaccurate.
Published
on
13 August 2025
A public dispute over charges at Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre has developed into a case of how political statements and subsequent media coverage can reshape the framing of an issue.
On 4 August 2024, veteran food critic KF Seetoh posted that hawkers were charged S$70 a month “just to use that space” where suppliers leave their orders.
He did not say hawkers were charged specifically for “blue baskets” — a phrase absent from his post and contradicted by an invoice showing a “TOL [Temporary Occupation Licence] Rented – Backyard Cluster” fee.
However, in a Facebook post on 11 August, Sembawang GRC MP Ong Ye Kung restated the claim as: “hawkers are charged $70 a month for the use of a blue basket to store their supplies.” He stated this was “not true”, but did not specify how or from whom he had obtained this information.
The report quoted Canopy Hawkers Group managing director Joey Tan saying the fee applied to permanent fixtures like cabinets or shelves, not to temporary overnight deliveries left in baskets.
By focusing on this rebuttal — which addressed Ong’s “basket” phrasing rather than Seetoh’s original point about space rental — the CNA article appeared to validate the minister’s correction and, by implication, cast doubt on Seetoh’s accuracy.
Seetoh, in a later public response, criticised CNA’s approach:
“I just read CNA’s report… they spoke to hawkers there under the happy watchful eyes of the operators (friendly security cameras) and quoted them too. But the one I respect is ST’s version last year… The hawkers spoke boldly and frankly… mentioned all you heard here, including the blue box rent, plus a lot more… Understandably these hawkers fear reprisals, that’s why they sought confidentiality.”
His statement drew a sharp contrast between CNA’s on-site interviews — which he suggested could be inhibited by the operator’s presence — and an earlier Straits Times investigation where hawkers spoke anonymously off-site, confirming both the space charge and other operational concerns.
In CNA’s report, several hawkers said they only paid the S$70 fee when placing permanent cabinets or shelves, while others said they used baskets temporarily without charge. This was consistent with the operator’s quoted hygiene rationale, but it addressed the “basket” framing from Ong Ye Kung’s post rather than the actual scope of the charge.
If Ong’s “basket” description had originated from the operator, it would have been a masterstroke in narrative management — reframing the dispute in a way that muddled the central issue of chargeable space and set the terms for both ministerial and media responses.
By focusing on baskets, the operator effectively reclassified the matter and sidestepped the fact — not denied in CNA’s reporting — that the same 0.48 square metre “backyard cluster” space is billable under a TOL when used exclusively.
The invoice Seetoh posted confirms this, showing the fee applies regardless of whether the space holds a cabinet or is used for deliveries. This evidence directly supports Seetoh’s original wording and shows the “basket” description originated from Ong’s restatement, not from him.
The charity meal clause — and a deeper theory
Alongside the space charge, Seetoh also drew attention to a clause in hawkers’ contracts requiring them to provide free meals to low-income residents. Ong said this was revised from 60 meals a month to 100 meals over a three-year lease, with no penalties and no implementation yet.
In CNA’s report, hawkers were quoted as saying they accepted the terms when signing their leases, with some considering the number of meals reasonable.
This presentation downplayed the contractual risk, even though the clause remains legally binding. Given that interviews were conducted on-site and in the hawkers’ names, it is unlikely any hawker would openly say they oppose a charity initiative under those conditions.
A theory shared by a Reddit user suggests the “pay-it-forward” scheme was likely part of the operator’s tender proposal, as hawker centre bids must include a “social mission” element. The user argued that once the tender was secured, the operator avoided enforcing the scheme to prevent hawker pushback or closures, but left the obligation in place.
They calculated that the original 60-meal monthly requirement could cost a hawker around S$300 in unsubsidised food each month, on top of other charges such as S$70 for space rental, S$650 for table cleaning, and S$258 for dishwashing — before rent, ingredient costs, and labour.
They questioned why the obligation fell on hawkers rather than the operator, especially since regulations require operators to channel at least 50% of operating surpluses back to hawkers or the community.
Seetoh has maintained that charity meals, if voluntary, should not be written into contracts at all. In his view, leaving such clauses in place — even if unenforced — places hawkers “at the mercy and grace of the operators” and creates a latent obligation that could be used against them.
As with the “basket” narrative, CNA’s framing here echoed the operator’s position while omitting the power dynamics at play — in both cases, leaving unchallenged a contractual or financial burden that hawkers may be reluctant to speak against when interviewed publicly and on-site.
What the documents and charges show
The free meal clause, while currently dormant, remains in contracts — creating a potential future burden if enforced. Both this and the S$70 space charge raise questions about transparency in operator-hawker relationships.
The bigger concern, however, is how the public narrative was shaped.
Minister Ong’s Facebook post reframed KF Seetoh’s “space rental” claim into a “basket” claim and then rebutted it. That reframing has since been used by online astroturfers and partisan commentators to portray Seetoh as dishonest, attacking him personally while sidestepping the underlying issue of chargeable space.
CNA’s report repeated the operator’s denial of the “basket” fee without noting that the “basket” framing originated from Ong’s wording, not from Seetoh.
This sequence — from Ong’s reframing, to the operator’s rebuttal, to CNA’s coverage — created a self-reinforcing loop that treated a minister’s inaccurate restatement as the factual baseline.
In doing so, it left Seetoh’s documented claim unaddressed and the minister’s initial misrepresentation unchallenged.
Share this:
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 31,010
- Points
- 113
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1RL87g73bV/
psp did a good job as oppies but too bad..the ppl failed the psp
THE REAL ISSUES IN THE BUKIT CANBERRA DISPUTE
I have been following the recent dispute between veteran hawker advocate KF Seetoh and Minister Ong Ye Kung, over hawkers at Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre being charged $70 a month for the space to leave a basket behind their stalls for supplier deliveries.
We should not be distracted in this dispute. In my opinion, there are two key issues:
1) Fees being charged for all kinds of reasons by operators of Socially-Conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres (SEHCs) like Bukit Canberra.
2) The clause in hawkers’ contracts requiring them to provide free meals to low-income residents.
PSP has previously raised both issues in Parliament in November 2024, when I raised a motion in Parliament on sustaining hawker culture in Singapore, and proposed solutions. The motion I raised was amended and passed unanimously. But why has the Government not done the necessary reviews to rectify some of the issues we had debated in Parliament? If the reviews were done and changes have been made, why have the same issues been raised again?
1) Fees
In November 2024, I pointed out that these fees at the SEHCs, such as table cleaning fees, dishwashing fees, S&CC fees and pest control fees, can add up to as much as the rent itself.
For example, the hawkers at Bukit Canberra have been billed a $650 table cleaning fee. Why is such a high fee still being charged when customers have to clear their own tables?
That is why during the debate, PSP proposed for the SEHC model to be phased out.
Is it justifiable for private SEHC operators to impose fees as a means to maximise any surpluses or profits from hawker centres, which are public assets?
Hawker centres are part of our national heritage. They should be run by the Government solely for the benefit of the people and not for anyone’s profit.
2) Hawkers being required to provide free meals
The current approach, where hawkers at SEHCs and HDB coffeeshops are being contractually forced or guilt-tripped into selling budget meals, is unsustainable. The cost of budget meals is being shouldered by hawkers. Many hawkers are not high-income and already struggle with high costs and manpower shortages.
In November, I argued that instead of forcing hawkers to offer budget meals at their own expense, the Government should be funding these initiatives. The Government can pay for food discounts for Pioneer and Merdeka Generation seniors and CHAS cardholders, or provide lower-income households with more CDC vouchers. This way, we can ensure that hawker food remains affordable for those who need them most, without compromising the livelihoods of our hawkers.
Hawkers have provided everyone in Singapore with affordable, good food for decades. But they should not be asked to provide social welfare as inflation crushes the livelihoods of many Singaporeans.
Our hawker culture is a national treasure, but for it to survive, we need to work together to build a fair and sustainable ecosystem. PSP will continue to speak up for our hawkers.
psp did a good job as oppies but too bad..the ppl failed the psp
THE REAL ISSUES IN THE BUKIT CANBERRA DISPUTE
I have been following the recent dispute between veteran hawker advocate KF Seetoh and Minister Ong Ye Kung, over hawkers at Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre being charged $70 a month for the space to leave a basket behind their stalls for supplier deliveries.
We should not be distracted in this dispute. In my opinion, there are two key issues:
1) Fees being charged for all kinds of reasons by operators of Socially-Conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres (SEHCs) like Bukit Canberra.
2) The clause in hawkers’ contracts requiring them to provide free meals to low-income residents.
PSP has previously raised both issues in Parliament in November 2024, when I raised a motion in Parliament on sustaining hawker culture in Singapore, and proposed solutions. The motion I raised was amended and passed unanimously. But why has the Government not done the necessary reviews to rectify some of the issues we had debated in Parliament? If the reviews were done and changes have been made, why have the same issues been raised again?
1) Fees
In November 2024, I pointed out that these fees at the SEHCs, such as table cleaning fees, dishwashing fees, S&CC fees and pest control fees, can add up to as much as the rent itself.
For example, the hawkers at Bukit Canberra have been billed a $650 table cleaning fee. Why is such a high fee still being charged when customers have to clear their own tables?
That is why during the debate, PSP proposed for the SEHC model to be phased out.
Is it justifiable for private SEHC operators to impose fees as a means to maximise any surpluses or profits from hawker centres, which are public assets?
Hawker centres are part of our national heritage. They should be run by the Government solely for the benefit of the people and not for anyone’s profit.
2) Hawkers being required to provide free meals
The current approach, where hawkers at SEHCs and HDB coffeeshops are being contractually forced or guilt-tripped into selling budget meals, is unsustainable. The cost of budget meals is being shouldered by hawkers. Many hawkers are not high-income and already struggle with high costs and manpower shortages.
In November, I argued that instead of forcing hawkers to offer budget meals at their own expense, the Government should be funding these initiatives. The Government can pay for food discounts for Pioneer and Merdeka Generation seniors and CHAS cardholders, or provide lower-income households with more CDC vouchers. This way, we can ensure that hawker food remains affordable for those who need them most, without compromising the livelihoods of our hawkers.
Hawkers have provided everyone in Singapore with affordable, good food for decades. But they should not be asked to provide social welfare as inflation crushes the livelihoods of many Singaporeans.
Our hawker culture is a national treasure, but for it to survive, we need to work together to build a fair and sustainable ecosystem. PSP will continue to speak up for our hawkers.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 31,010
- Points
- 113
They just have to pomfa ag shitoh can oreadi
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2022
- Messages
- 20,954
- Points
- 113
FUCK PAP 
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2008
- Messages
- 61,556
- Points
- 113
how cum the $69 charge keeps showing up everywhere, from whorehouses in geylang to hawker centers in bukit canberra?
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2023
- Messages
- 4,176
- Points
- 113
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
High SES foreigners only eat at Maxwell hawker centre if they come here
He also makes us pay higher and higher premium of Medishield Life. Even though retirees with no income are also made to pay higher and higher premium.
Many have made no claim and stay healthy, also are to pay higher premium.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 31,010
- Points
- 113
So in the end....singkieland medical care is a scam
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 31,010
- Points
- 113
Bukit Canberra hawkers' storage fee & charity meal clauses: A timeline of what happened since KF Seetoh's Facebook post
Clarifications.
August 14, 2025, 11:30 AM
A food critic and Makansutra founder, a Minister who is an MP of the constituency, a social enterprise hawker centre, and a couple of opposition members.
They are all involved (to varying degrees) in the saga regarding the issues that Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre stallholders reportedly face.
If you did not follow the developments during the National Day weekend, here is the full account of the whole situation:
Aug. 4: Temporary Occupational Licence
Seetoh's first claim was made in an Aug. 4 Facebook post.
In the post, Seetoh alleged that stallholders were being charged S$70 to use a basket to store deliveries from suppliers.
A video uploaded alongside the post highlighted a blue basket on the ground behind several hawker stalls.
Screenshot via KF Seetoh/Facebook
Aug. 8: 'Forced charity'
On Aug. 8, Seetoh made another Facebook post claiming that hawkers at Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre are "contractually obligated" to provide 60 free meals per month — 30 as part of a "Pay-It-Forward" programme and another 30 as part of a "Customer-Relationship Management" programme.
"They are also contractually forced to offer budget S$3 - S$3.50 meals," Seetoh wrote.
Aug. 11: Minister Ong Ye Kung, who is the MP, responds to Seetoh's claims
On Aug. 11, Minister for Health Ong Ye Kung pushed back against Seetoh's claims in a Facebook post.
Ong is a Member of Parliament for Sembawang GRC, where the hawker centre is located.
Responding to Seetoh's posts, Ong wrote that he looked into the matters raised.
Ong stated that the S$70 charge "is not true", and that "there is no such practice of charging for the use of the blue baskets at the back of their stalls".
"Second, it was also claimed that hawkers must provide 60 free meals each month. This does not present the full picture," Ong added.
Ong explained that stallholders had initially agreed to provide 30 meals a month for low-income residents.
"This was subsequently adjusted to 100 meals over the three-year duration of their lease," Ong shared.
There are also no penalties if the stallholders do not or are unable to provide the meals, according to Ong.
"This simple, well-intentioned initiative was meant to encourage our hawkers to ‘Pay-It-Forward’. In any case, the initiative has yet to commence," Ong pointed out.
Aug. 12: Seetoh shared receipts of payment
On Aug. 12, Seetoh made another Facebook post on the issue.
He even shared screenshots of his conversation with a hawker as well as a receipt detailing the S$70 charge that he mentioned in his first post on Aug. 4.
In a screenshot shared by Seetoh, a hawker said that they had to pay extra for the space at the back of their stall, be it a basket or a cabinet.
Photo via KF Seetoh/Facebook
Photo via KF Seetoh/Facebook
He then showed a screenshot of a payment invoice that detailed a fee of S$70 under "TOL Rented - Backyard Cluster".
Photo via KF Seetoh/Facebook
Seetoh said that hawkers use the blue box for their suppliers to put the orders in before operating hours.
"If you use that space, whether for blue box supply deliveries or place a cabinet for storage, it's chargeable and it's what was corresponded with the hawker. They should just charge for storage cabinets, not for a blue box, [to] be fair," said Seetoh.
Aug. 12: Canopy Hawkers Group provides more details
In a Facebook post by Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre on Aug. 12, Canopy Hawkers Group (CHG) reiterated that it does not charge stallholders a monthly fee for the space outside each stall for delivery drops.
Regarding the Pay-It-Forward programme, CHG stated that it has not officially commenced, and the necessary preparations have not been completed since the stall application stage three years ago.
CHG added that if a stallholder wishes to rent additional space outside their stall boundary for storage purposes on an ongoing basis, a Temporary Occupational Licence (TOL) fee would apply.
This is a common and standard practice across many hawker centres and markets in Singapore, CHG noted.
CHG said in their Facebook post that the receipt of S$70 is for the TOL.
CHG also clarified that they incorporated "their vision to pay-it-forward to the community through the offering of free meals to the low income" as part of their selection process during the stall application stage in 2022.
As it was part of their selection criteria, the Pay-It-Forward programme became part of the tenancy contract.
In addition, the Pay-It-Forward programme has not officially started as the group needs to identify low-income residents and be able to track their eligibility.
The preparatory work for the programme has not been done yet, CHG said.
As such, hawkers are not obligated to provide the meals, and there are no penalties.
"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."
"We remain committed to upholding the interests of our stallholders and the sustainability of the hawker trade," said CHG.
Aug. 13: Opposition enters the fray
Former NCMP Leong Mun Wai urged Singaporeans not to be distracted in this dispute in his Facebook post on Aug. 13.
He said that the two key issues related to fees being charged by Socially-Conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres and the clause in hawkers’ contracts requiring them to provide free meals to low-income residents.
He argued that the government should be funding budget meals initiatives, instead of "forcing hawkers" to do so.
Red Dot United Sec-Gen Ravi Philemon said that he is a regular patron of Bukit Canberra Hawker centre, and sought Minister Ong's answers to his queries.
He questioned whether such welfare initiatives should be written into hawker contract, instead of being funded and carried out directly by the State as part of its responsibility to society.
Aug. 13: Seetoh calls for unity
Seetoh said that the "Canberra hawker situation, should be a masterclass moment to unite, not divide the people of Singapore".
He concluded that the issue lies with "the system" and it was "most certainly not about politics".
He asked for a major rethink and have a guide and rulebook for all future hawker operators.
Top photos via Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre/Facebook & KF Seetoh/Facebook
Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Telegram to get the latest updates.
MORE STORIES
Clarifications.
August 14, 2025, 11:30 AM
A food critic and Makansutra founder, a Minister who is an MP of the constituency, a social enterprise hawker centre, and a couple of opposition members.
They are all involved (to varying degrees) in the saga regarding the issues that Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre stallholders reportedly face.
If you did not follow the developments during the National Day weekend, here is the full account of the whole situation:
Aug. 4: Temporary Occupational Licence
Seetoh's first claim was made in an Aug. 4 Facebook post.
In the post, Seetoh alleged that stallholders were being charged S$70 to use a basket to store deliveries from suppliers.
A video uploaded alongside the post highlighted a blue basket on the ground behind several hawker stalls.
Screenshot via KF Seetoh/Facebook
Aug. 8: 'Forced charity'
On Aug. 8, Seetoh made another Facebook post claiming that hawkers at Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre are "contractually obligated" to provide 60 free meals per month — 30 as part of a "Pay-It-Forward" programme and another 30 as part of a "Customer-Relationship Management" programme.
"They are also contractually forced to offer budget S$3 - S$3.50 meals," Seetoh wrote.
Aug. 11: Minister Ong Ye Kung, who is the MP, responds to Seetoh's claims
On Aug. 11, Minister for Health Ong Ye Kung pushed back against Seetoh's claims in a Facebook post.
Ong is a Member of Parliament for Sembawang GRC, where the hawker centre is located.
Responding to Seetoh's posts, Ong wrote that he looked into the matters raised.
Ong stated that the S$70 charge "is not true", and that "there is no such practice of charging for the use of the blue baskets at the back of their stalls".
"Second, it was also claimed that hawkers must provide 60 free meals each month. This does not present the full picture," Ong added.
Ong explained that stallholders had initially agreed to provide 30 meals a month for low-income residents.
"This was subsequently adjusted to 100 meals over the three-year duration of their lease," Ong shared.
There are also no penalties if the stallholders do not or are unable to provide the meals, according to Ong.
"This simple, well-intentioned initiative was meant to encourage our hawkers to ‘Pay-It-Forward’. In any case, the initiative has yet to commence," Ong pointed out.
Aug. 12: Seetoh shared receipts of payment
On Aug. 12, Seetoh made another Facebook post on the issue.
He even shared screenshots of his conversation with a hawker as well as a receipt detailing the S$70 charge that he mentioned in his first post on Aug. 4.
In a screenshot shared by Seetoh, a hawker said that they had to pay extra for the space at the back of their stall, be it a basket or a cabinet.
Photo via KF Seetoh/Facebook
Photo via KF Seetoh/Facebook
He then showed a screenshot of a payment invoice that detailed a fee of S$70 under "TOL Rented - Backyard Cluster".
Photo via KF Seetoh/Facebook
Seetoh said that hawkers use the blue box for their suppliers to put the orders in before operating hours.
"If you use that space, whether for blue box supply deliveries or place a cabinet for storage, it's chargeable and it's what was corresponded with the hawker. They should just charge for storage cabinets, not for a blue box, [to] be fair," said Seetoh.
Aug. 12: Canopy Hawkers Group provides more details
In a Facebook post by Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre on Aug. 12, Canopy Hawkers Group (CHG) reiterated that it does not charge stallholders a monthly fee for the space outside each stall for delivery drops.
Regarding the Pay-It-Forward programme, CHG stated that it has not officially commenced, and the necessary preparations have not been completed since the stall application stage three years ago.
CHG added that if a stallholder wishes to rent additional space outside their stall boundary for storage purposes on an ongoing basis, a Temporary Occupational Licence (TOL) fee would apply.
This is a common and standard practice across many hawker centres and markets in Singapore, CHG noted.
CHG said in their Facebook post that the receipt of S$70 is for the TOL.
CHG also clarified that they incorporated "their vision to pay-it-forward to the community through the offering of free meals to the low income" as part of their selection process during the stall application stage in 2022.
As it was part of their selection criteria, the Pay-It-Forward programme became part of the tenancy contract.
In addition, the Pay-It-Forward programme has not officially started as the group needs to identify low-income residents and be able to track their eligibility.
The preparatory work for the programme has not been done yet, CHG said.
As such, hawkers are not obligated to provide the meals, and there are no penalties.
"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."
"We remain committed to upholding the interests of our stallholders and the sustainability of the hawker trade," said CHG.
Aug. 13: Opposition enters the fray
Former NCMP Leong Mun Wai urged Singaporeans not to be distracted in this dispute in his Facebook post on Aug. 13.
He said that the two key issues related to fees being charged by Socially-Conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres and the clause in hawkers’ contracts requiring them to provide free meals to low-income residents.
He argued that the government should be funding budget meals initiatives, instead of "forcing hawkers" to do so.
Red Dot United Sec-Gen Ravi Philemon said that he is a regular patron of Bukit Canberra Hawker centre, and sought Minister Ong's answers to his queries.
He questioned whether such welfare initiatives should be written into hawker contract, instead of being funded and carried out directly by the State as part of its responsibility to society.
Aug. 13: Seetoh calls for unity
Seetoh said that the "Canberra hawker situation, should be a masterclass moment to unite, not divide the people of Singapore".
He concluded that the issue lies with "the system" and it was "most certainly not about politics".
He asked for a major rethink and have a guide and rulebook for all future hawker operators.
Top photos via Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre/Facebook & KF Seetoh/Facebook
Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Telegram to get the latest updates.
MORE STORIES
nabez, it's becos of you that this number is always bandied about - as many of them visit this forum.
knn, lok-kau you, and twice on sundays!
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 31,010
- Points
- 113
Canopy Hawkers Group responds to KF Seetoh's claims over storage fee and charity meal clauses
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 31,010
- Points
- 113
Zaobao report reveals Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre contract contains penalties for not providing charity meals
Lianhe Zaobao has reported that Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre’s tenancy contract includes penalty clauses for hawkers who do not participate in its free meal scheme, contradicting Minister Ong Ye Kung’s earlier statement that there would be “no penalties”. The operator says the scheme has not started and promises a review.
Published
on
14 August 2025
A Lianhe Zaobao investigation has found that tenancy contracts for Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre include clauses imposing penalty points and fines on stallholders who fail to take part in its charity meal scheme, despite earlier public statements that no penalties were in place.
The Chinese-language daily reviewed a contract signed by hawkers in 2022, which requires participation in the “Pay It Forward” programme to provide free meals, as well as a customer loyalty scheme.
Under the terms, failing to take part in either programme would result in six demerit points and a S$50 breach penalty for each offence.
The document further states that accumulating 12 points in one year would make a stallholder ineligible for renewal, while 24 points within a year could lead to termination of the lease with two months’ notice.
Minister Ong’s earlier statement
On 11 August, Minister for Health Ong Ye Kung — who is also the Member of Parliament for Sembawang GRC, where the hawker centre is located — posted on Facebook responding to earlier criticism from food critic KF Seetoh, saying that there were “no penalties” for hawkers who did not or could not provide charity meals.
He described the scheme as a voluntary initiative aimed at encouraging hawkers to “pay it forward” to low-income residents, adding that it had not yet begun.
This statement appeared to contrast with the written terms in the contracts obtained by Zaobao, which explicitly outline the potential penalties for non-participation.
Operator’s clarification and review
Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre is managed by Canopy Hawkers Group, one of five social enterprise hawker centre operators in Singapore.
According to Zaobao, it is the only one among 16 such centres to include charity meal obligations in its tenancy contracts.
In a Facebook post on 12 August, Canopy said that when stallholders were selected three years ago, the requirement to provide charity meals was part of the evaluation criteria and was incorporated into the lease.
Initially, hawkers were expected to serve 30 free meals each month. In August 2023, this was revised to 100 meals across a three-year lease — an average of fewer than three per month. The company explained that the programme had not yet launched because eligibility checks for low-income beneficiaries were still being developed.
“Since the programme has not started, there is currently no question of any penalties for non-compliance,” the company said.
Canopy added that it agreed charity work should not be made contractual and pledged to review the clause once the scheme is ready for implementation.
The contract also required hawkers to provide 30 “loyalty meals” a month to support a customer rewards scheme. From August 2023, this was replaced with a 10 per cent cashback for customers paying through the hawker centre’s mobile app.
Hawkers’ mixed reactions
While some hawkers told Zaobao they were willing to fulfil the charity meal terms and saw them as reasonable, others expressed concern about the inclusion of penalty clauses.
Nasi lemak stallholder Luo Bizhen, 50, said the scheme reflected the hawkers’ goodwill, and that the management had never indicated it would be strictly enforced.
However, she acknowledged she was unaware of the penalty clauses because she had not read the English-language contract closely.
“Including penalty clauses in the contract is unreasonable,” she said. “But the Minister has said there will be no penalties, so we believe him. If management says they will review it, then let them discuss how to make it better.”
Leicha stallholder Huang Weifeng, 52, noted that while charity meals were a good idea, his stall’s revenue was lower than expected and operating costs were high.
“If a day’s revenue is only S$300 or S$400, how can we give back to society?” he asked, suggesting that the number of charity meals be adjusted according to each stallholder’s financial situation.
He warned that if the penalty clause remained when contracts were renewed, he might need to reconsider whether the business was sustainable.
Wider context of social enterprise hawker centres
Social enterprise hawker centres (SEHCs) are run by operators appointed by the Government to manage facilities on a not-for-profit basis, with the aim of balancing commercial viability and social responsibility.
As of July 2024, Singapore has 123 hawker centres, of which 16 are SEHCs operated by five different social enterprises, including Fei Siong Social Enterprise, NTUC Foodfare, and Timbre+ Hawkers.
Zaobao’s findings underline that the contractual structure of Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre is distinct from other SEHCs in its formal inclusion of charity meal obligations.
Unresolved discrepancy
Food critic KF Seetoh had, in earlier posts, already shared excerpts from the Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre tenancy contract showing the charity meal requirement and its stipulated penalties.
With Zaobao’s report now confirming the existence of those clauses in full, Minister Ong has not publicly addressed the apparent discrepancy between his 11 August statement — which asserted there were “no penalties” — and the written terms.
Share this:
Lianhe Zaobao has reported that Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre’s tenancy contract includes penalty clauses for hawkers who do not participate in its free meal scheme, contradicting Minister Ong Ye Kung’s earlier statement that there would be “no penalties”. The operator says the scheme has not started and promises a review.
Published
on
14 August 2025
A Lianhe Zaobao investigation has found that tenancy contracts for Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre include clauses imposing penalty points and fines on stallholders who fail to take part in its charity meal scheme, despite earlier public statements that no penalties were in place.
The Chinese-language daily reviewed a contract signed by hawkers in 2022, which requires participation in the “Pay It Forward” programme to provide free meals, as well as a customer loyalty scheme.
Under the terms, failing to take part in either programme would result in six demerit points and a S$50 breach penalty for each offence.
The document further states that accumulating 12 points in one year would make a stallholder ineligible for renewal, while 24 points within a year could lead to termination of the lease with two months’ notice.
Minister Ong’s earlier statement
On 11 August, Minister for Health Ong Ye Kung — who is also the Member of Parliament for Sembawang GRC, where the hawker centre is located — posted on Facebook responding to earlier criticism from food critic KF Seetoh, saying that there were “no penalties” for hawkers who did not or could not provide charity meals.
He described the scheme as a voluntary initiative aimed at encouraging hawkers to “pay it forward” to low-income residents, adding that it had not yet begun.
This statement appeared to contrast with the written terms in the contracts obtained by Zaobao, which explicitly outline the potential penalties for non-participation.
Operator’s clarification and review
Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre is managed by Canopy Hawkers Group, one of five social enterprise hawker centre operators in Singapore.
According to Zaobao, it is the only one among 16 such centres to include charity meal obligations in its tenancy contracts.
In a Facebook post on 12 August, Canopy said that when stallholders were selected three years ago, the requirement to provide charity meals was part of the evaluation criteria and was incorporated into the lease.
Initially, hawkers were expected to serve 30 free meals each month. In August 2023, this was revised to 100 meals across a three-year lease — an average of fewer than three per month. The company explained that the programme had not yet launched because eligibility checks for low-income beneficiaries were still being developed.
“Since the programme has not started, there is currently no question of any penalties for non-compliance,” the company said.
Canopy added that it agreed charity work should not be made contractual and pledged to review the clause once the scheme is ready for implementation.
The contract also required hawkers to provide 30 “loyalty meals” a month to support a customer rewards scheme. From August 2023, this was replaced with a 10 per cent cashback for customers paying through the hawker centre’s mobile app.
Hawkers’ mixed reactions
While some hawkers told Zaobao they were willing to fulfil the charity meal terms and saw them as reasonable, others expressed concern about the inclusion of penalty clauses.
Nasi lemak stallholder Luo Bizhen, 50, said the scheme reflected the hawkers’ goodwill, and that the management had never indicated it would be strictly enforced.
However, she acknowledged she was unaware of the penalty clauses because she had not read the English-language contract closely.
“Including penalty clauses in the contract is unreasonable,” she said. “But the Minister has said there will be no penalties, so we believe him. If management says they will review it, then let them discuss how to make it better.”
Leicha stallholder Huang Weifeng, 52, noted that while charity meals were a good idea, his stall’s revenue was lower than expected and operating costs were high.
“If a day’s revenue is only S$300 or S$400, how can we give back to society?” he asked, suggesting that the number of charity meals be adjusted according to each stallholder’s financial situation.
He warned that if the penalty clause remained when contracts were renewed, he might need to reconsider whether the business was sustainable.
Wider context of social enterprise hawker centres
Social enterprise hawker centres (SEHCs) are run by operators appointed by the Government to manage facilities on a not-for-profit basis, with the aim of balancing commercial viability and social responsibility.
As of July 2024, Singapore has 123 hawker centres, of which 16 are SEHCs operated by five different social enterprises, including Fei Siong Social Enterprise, NTUC Foodfare, and Timbre+ Hawkers.
Zaobao’s findings underline that the contractual structure of Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre is distinct from other SEHCs in its formal inclusion of charity meal obligations.
Unresolved discrepancy
Food critic KF Seetoh had, in earlier posts, already shared excerpts from the Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre tenancy contract showing the charity meal requirement and its stipulated penalties.
With Zaobao’s report now confirming the existence of those clauses in full, Minister Ong has not publicly addressed the apparent discrepancy between his 11 August statement — which asserted there were “no penalties” — and the written terms.
Share this:
Similar threads
