- Joined
- Jul 16, 2008
- Messages
- 26,134
- Points
- 113
[Sg] - OYK says OYK is talking nonsense
- Thread starter UltimaOnline
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 108,273
- 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
- 108,273
- 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
- 30,994
- 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
- 30,994
- 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.
Similar threads
