- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 31,009
- Points
- 113
Calls grow for reform as Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre faces scrutiny over fees and charity clauses
KF Seetoh’s criticism of Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre’s storage fees and charity meal clauses has intensified public debate on Singapore’s Socially-Conscious Enterprise Hawker Centre model. Many urge systemic reforms to protect hawker culture, balance community support with sustainability, and ensure transparent, fair management.
Published
on
14 August 2025
The Socially-Conscious Enterprise Hawker Centre (SEHC) model has come under heightened scrutiny after hawker advocate KF Seetoh raised concerns over storage space fees and charity meal clauses imposed by the operator of Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre, Canopy Hawkers Group.
Despite a clarification issued on 12 August 2025, online discussions continue to press for further examination of the hawker management model.
Many netizens are calling for a systemic overhaul and stronger national collaboration to safeguard Singapore’s hawker culture.
Canopy Hawkers Group responds to KF Seetoh’s claims over storage fee and charity meal clauses
Canopy Hawkers Group managing director Joey Tan told CNA on 12 August that storage charges — excluding GST — only apply to hawkers who opt for permanent fixtures such as cabinets or shelves behind their stalls.
The arrangement is formalised through a Temporary Occupation Licence (TOL) for the lease period. Hawkers leaving temporary items, such as blue baskets for overnight deliveries, are not charged.
Tan explained that enclosed storage was introduced following hawker requests to improve hygiene and deter pests.
Dispute over “Backyard Cluster” fee
The dispute began on 4 August when Seetoh alleged hawkers were billed for leaving delivery baskets behind stalls.
Minister for Health Ong Ye Kung responded on 11 August, stating there was “no practice of charging” hawkers for the use of blue baskets.
On 12 August, Seetoh posted an invoice, rental receipt, and WhatsApp exchanges with a hawker showing a S$70 “Backyard Cluster” TOL fee.
He argued that operators should charge only for fixed cabinets, not for holding goods temporarily.
He noted that the 0.48 square metre space was sometimes used for deliveries and sometimes for cabinets.
Canopy Hawkers Group did not dispute that the hawker had paid the fee but maintained it was for permanent storage.
The operator said enclosed cabinets support cleanliness and reduce contamination risks.
Charity meal clauses questioned
Seetoh also renewed criticism of SEHC contracts requiring hawkers to provide free meals to low-income residents — 30 meals monthly under a Community Relationship Management initiative and another 30 under “Pay-It-Forward”.
He noted that the contractual term “shall” made the clause binding and potentially enforceable.
Tan confirmed the scheme has not yet started, with preparatory work still underway, and expressed support for community contributions while declining to comment on removing the clause.
Seetoh urges national “hawker hackathon” to tackle systemic issues beyond storage fees and charity meal clauses
In a 13 August Facebook post, Seetoh urged Singaporeans to treat the dispute as an opportunity to unite rather than focus on blame.
While the immediate debate centred on storage fees and charity obligations, he argued these were symptoms of a deeper systemic problem in hawker management.
He called for a national rethink of hawker culture, covering governance, entrepreneurship, community, sustainability, tourism, and support systems.
Seetoh proposed a “hawker hackathon” involving government, hawkers, industry experts, and the public to develop a guide and rulebook for future hawker operators — including Housing and Development Board coffeeshops — under a new government department with independent advisors.
Calls grow for transparent, fair, and collaborative reforms to sustain hawker culture and community support
Comments on Seetoh’s Facebook page, Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre’s page, and CNA’s Facebook platform show broad agreement that reforms should prioritise fairness, transparency, and voluntary rather than mandatory charity.
Jack Sim, founder of the World Toilet Organization, warned that taxing hawkers to fund charity discourages newcomers at a time when the trade is ageing.
He criticised what he saw as the government’s reluctance to acknowledge flaws, arguing that denial prevents resolution of simple issues, such as dirty coffeeshop toilets.
Benny Se Teo, founder of Eighteen Chefs, echoed Seetoh’s sentiment that the issue is non-political and not about petty disputes but a call for collective action to rethink and rebuild hawker culture through systemic reform.
Questions on bid criteria and management fees
Veteran journalist Bertha Henson sought clarification on whether budget meals or pay-it-forward schemes are criteria in selecting operators. She also pressed for disclosure of management fees the government pays operators.
Henson criticised the inclusion of charity clauses in contracts when preparatory work had not begun, calling it premature even if the clauses are variable.
Suggestions for alternative community support
Some comments proposed offering 50% discounts during off-peak periods as a sustainable way to support the community while maintaining profitability.
Others called for reviewing all charges to better manage living costs.
A receipt shared by Seetoh also drew criticism for a “Table Cleaning Fee” of S$650, or 42.5% of stall rental.
With GST, the charge rises to S$708.50. Some questioned the fee’s necessity when diners already return trays and clean tables themselves.
Broader criticisms of SEHC model
Several comments targeted the perceived power imbalance between SEHC operators or government agencies and individual hawkers.
Critics argued hawkers should not be compelled to act as soup kitchens, especially if they face their own financial pressures, and questioned whether they receive subsidies in return.
Restrictive contract terms were also flagged, including fixed workdays, menu limitations, bans on cost-saving measures, and enforced charity obligations.
One comment likened this to imposing unpaid charity work as a key performance indicator on civil servants or ministers.
Concerns over rigid management style
A netizen described a negative experience applying for a stall at Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre, criticising Canopy Hawkers Group’s management style as overly rigid and more suited to running food courts than hawker centres.
The hawker cited rules such as rear-only stall access, no storage at back walkways or stall fronts, compulsory use of management-approved containers, and enforced clock-in/clock-out procedures with leave subject to approval.
Although later offered a stall, the hawker declined, calling it a good career decision.
The hawker claimed veteran hawkers rated the centre poorly for prioritising corporate-style control over hawker needs.
Share this:
KF Seetoh’s criticism of Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre’s storage fees and charity meal clauses has intensified public debate on Singapore’s Socially-Conscious Enterprise Hawker Centre model. Many urge systemic reforms to protect hawker culture, balance community support with sustainability, and ensure transparent, fair management.
Published
on
14 August 2025
The Socially-Conscious Enterprise Hawker Centre (SEHC) model has come under heightened scrutiny after hawker advocate KF Seetoh raised concerns over storage space fees and charity meal clauses imposed by the operator of Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre, Canopy Hawkers Group.
Despite a clarification issued on 12 August 2025, online discussions continue to press for further examination of the hawker management model.
Many netizens are calling for a systemic overhaul and stronger national collaboration to safeguard Singapore’s hawker culture.
Canopy Hawkers Group responds to KF Seetoh’s claims over storage fee and charity meal clauses
Canopy Hawkers Group managing director Joey Tan told CNA on 12 August that storage charges — excluding GST — only apply to hawkers who opt for permanent fixtures such as cabinets or shelves behind their stalls.
The arrangement is formalised through a Temporary Occupation Licence (TOL) for the lease period. Hawkers leaving temporary items, such as blue baskets for overnight deliveries, are not charged.
Tan explained that enclosed storage was introduced following hawker requests to improve hygiene and deter pests.
Dispute over “Backyard Cluster” fee
The dispute began on 4 August when Seetoh alleged hawkers were billed for leaving delivery baskets behind stalls.
Minister for Health Ong Ye Kung responded on 11 August, stating there was “no practice of charging” hawkers for the use of blue baskets.
On 12 August, Seetoh posted an invoice, rental receipt, and WhatsApp exchanges with a hawker showing a S$70 “Backyard Cluster” TOL fee.
He argued that operators should charge only for fixed cabinets, not for holding goods temporarily.
He noted that the 0.48 square metre space was sometimes used for deliveries and sometimes for cabinets.
Canopy Hawkers Group did not dispute that the hawker had paid the fee but maintained it was for permanent storage.
The operator said enclosed cabinets support cleanliness and reduce contamination risks.
Charity meal clauses questioned
Seetoh also renewed criticism of SEHC contracts requiring hawkers to provide free meals to low-income residents — 30 meals monthly under a Community Relationship Management initiative and another 30 under “Pay-It-Forward”.
He noted that the contractual term “shall” made the clause binding and potentially enforceable.
Tan confirmed the scheme has not yet started, with preparatory work still underway, and expressed support for community contributions while declining to comment on removing the clause.
Seetoh urges national “hawker hackathon” to tackle systemic issues beyond storage fees and charity meal clauses
In a 13 August Facebook post, Seetoh urged Singaporeans to treat the dispute as an opportunity to unite rather than focus on blame.
While the immediate debate centred on storage fees and charity obligations, he argued these were symptoms of a deeper systemic problem in hawker management.
He called for a national rethink of hawker culture, covering governance, entrepreneurship, community, sustainability, tourism, and support systems.
Seetoh proposed a “hawker hackathon” involving government, hawkers, industry experts, and the public to develop a guide and rulebook for future hawker operators — including Housing and Development Board coffeeshops — under a new government department with independent advisors.
Calls grow for transparent, fair, and collaborative reforms to sustain hawker culture and community support
Comments on Seetoh’s Facebook page, Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre’s page, and CNA’s Facebook platform show broad agreement that reforms should prioritise fairness, transparency, and voluntary rather than mandatory charity.
Jack Sim, founder of the World Toilet Organization, warned that taxing hawkers to fund charity discourages newcomers at a time when the trade is ageing.
He criticised what he saw as the government’s reluctance to acknowledge flaws, arguing that denial prevents resolution of simple issues, such as dirty coffeeshop toilets.
Benny Se Teo, founder of Eighteen Chefs, echoed Seetoh’s sentiment that the issue is non-political and not about petty disputes but a call for collective action to rethink and rebuild hawker culture through systemic reform.
Questions on bid criteria and management fees
Veteran journalist Bertha Henson sought clarification on whether budget meals or pay-it-forward schemes are criteria in selecting operators. She also pressed for disclosure of management fees the government pays operators.
Henson criticised the inclusion of charity clauses in contracts when preparatory work had not begun, calling it premature even if the clauses are variable.
Suggestions for alternative community support
Some comments proposed offering 50% discounts during off-peak periods as a sustainable way to support the community while maintaining profitability.
Others called for reviewing all charges to better manage living costs.
A receipt shared by Seetoh also drew criticism for a “Table Cleaning Fee” of S$650, or 42.5% of stall rental.
With GST, the charge rises to S$708.50. Some questioned the fee’s necessity when diners already return trays and clean tables themselves.
Broader criticisms of SEHC model
Several comments targeted the perceived power imbalance between SEHC operators or government agencies and individual hawkers.
Critics argued hawkers should not be compelled to act as soup kitchens, especially if they face their own financial pressures, and questioned whether they receive subsidies in return.
Restrictive contract terms were also flagged, including fixed workdays, menu limitations, bans on cost-saving measures, and enforced charity obligations.
One comment likened this to imposing unpaid charity work as a key performance indicator on civil servants or ministers.
Concerns over rigid management style
A netizen described a negative experience applying for a stall at Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre, criticising Canopy Hawkers Group’s management style as overly rigid and more suited to running food courts than hawker centres.
The hawker cited rules such as rear-only stall access, no storage at back walkways or stall fronts, compulsory use of management-approved containers, and enforced clock-in/clock-out procedures with leave subject to approval.
Although later offered a stall, the hawker declined, calling it a good career decision.
The hawker claimed veteran hawkers rated the centre poorly for prioritising corporate-style control over hawker needs.
Share this:
