Goh Hanyan
Singapore
“We will continue pressing on to build a Public Service that is ready to partner citizens sincerely and wholeheartedly – and become better partners that our citizens can count on. I thank Mr Foo again for sharing what his residents have accomplished.”
“Sir, I appreciate the Member raising the interest from his residents. We are aligned in wanting to provide more access to these facilities for our Singaporeans.”
“(In English): Mr Chairman, growing up is not a straight line. It begins with learning you are tougher than you think. It continues with you finding your way without losing who you are. And it grows into stepping forward to shape what comes next.”
“On the Youth Panels, I agree that it is very important for it to be brought to fruition and to show up in policy. MCCY and NYC manage this very closely to ensure that the recommendations are then put through the policy pipeline. For example, one of the topics was called #LifeHacks, but essentially, it was about financial resilience.”
“Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate the Member's consideration and concern for the cohorts affected by COVID-19. As I mentioned in my main speech, our priority for OBS is the MOE-OBS Challenge scale-up for Secondary 3 students up to 2030. That will be our priority – to get it right, to make sure we do it well.”
“To the Member's questions on sites for the MOE-OBS Challenge, yes, it will primarily be OBS' sites, so, they will be Pulau Ubin and also the Coney Island campus that will be coming up.”
The complete record
Every one of 58 lines we hold for Goh Hanyan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 2.
“Because these apps and different publicity efforts vary from location to location, the cost then varies across centres. But what is clear is that these are not passed on to the stallholders. These are done and extracted from the 50% of operating surplus that we require SEHC operators to plough back into the centre. I would also like to highlight that beyond developing these apps, there are other ways that our operators have also driven traffic to centres, which, I think, we can agree could be very costly undertakings, such as shuttle buses, organising festive events, fringe events and so on.”
“As the Member has suggested, a "cai png" stall will have a very different way of putting together some ingredients to meet the budget meal price, whereas a Japanese stall or a noodle stall would have a different way of putting together a meal that is within this price. I think it is also important for me to highlight that stallholders are not expected to make a loss when selling the value meals. The price is given and the stallholders then have the flexibility to put together a range of ingredients to meet that price. And that is not the end of story. From time to time, we understand that prices would increase with inflation and other reasons. Operators have also then reviewed these value meal prices and adjusted accordingly based on feedback from the stallholders. So, I would say that it is an ongoing process and the stallholders are continuously engaged to ensure that they understand and implement these value meal requirements properly. For the last question that the Member raised about the proportionate contribution between stallholders as well as the operators, I am glad that the Member has also pointed out that a loyalty programme pretty much benefits all parties in this situation. It benefits the stallholders because of increased footfall. Operators tend to gain as well and, of course, patrons tend to benefit from these discounts. The discounts are then born by stallholders at the stall level. And this will help to attract returning customers. Operators then invest in centralised systems. So, in all the cases that we have seen across SEHCs that have operated such programmes, the operators are the ones that develop and maintain these apps and publicity efforts.”
“I would like to thank the Member for his questions. For the first question, the Member asked about the average independently valued rents at the SEHCs, how do they compare with that at NEA-managed hawker centres? Sir, I have some figures here. They are generally comparable. In 2024, the median monthly rent at SEHCs, compared to non-subsidised stalls at similar NEA-managed hawker centres, were $1,750 for the former and $1,450 for the latter. So, pretty comparable. However, I would also like to highlight that when we compare rent, it should also not debase on absolute rent because we have to consider stall sizes and amenities in the centre. Those who have been to SEHCs would recognise that the stall sizes there are slightly bigger and also, there are other amenities that the stallholders would benefit from. The second question that the Member asked was about whether NEA has conducted a survey to understand how hawkers have understood the requirements and implemented the value meal requirement. To talk the Member through the process of how hawkers are made aware and how they implement the value meal requirement: first, these terms are made clear upfront by the operators prior to signing the tenancy agreements with the stallholders and they are required to then explain the terms clearly to the stallholders. So, the stallholders walk in with their eyes wide open about what is required and what they need to provide for the value meals. Operators then work closely with the stallholders on the provision of these value meals, so that they can determine what to sell for these value meals.”
“NEA has always sought to strike a balance between safeguarding the interests of both hawkers and patrons, whilst giving SEHC operators sufficient room to set requirements aligned with their business strategies to help their SEHCs thrive and succeed. Moving forward, we will continue to improve the SEHC management model through constructive engagement with stakeholders and continuous refinements to better serve the interests of our community.”
“This is among various initiatives introduced by operators to attract patrons, increase footfall and encourage repeat customers at their SEHCs, which would also benefit stallholders. SEHC operators bear the costs of developing such apps and conducting marketing and publicity efforts, while stallholders bear a portion of the costs by providing discounts in return for increased sales. This is an example of the partnership and shared efforts of operators and stallholders to make their SEHCs vibrant and successful. SEHC operators are required to conduct quarterly feedback sessions with their stallholders, which are also attended by NEA representatives. This serves as a regular platform for stallholders to provide feedback or ideas on improving the operations of SEHCs, or raise any areas of concern. For example, one operator took in feedback about high gas costs and will explore lower cost options after the current gas contract expires. Another operator stepped up checks on the segregation of trays and crockery following feedback from stallholders as well. This consultative approach between operators and stallholders fosters trust and understanding and allows differences to be addressed and SEHC operations to be improved. Mr Speaker, our SEHCs have been vibrant and have brought many benefits to our community. Satisfaction levels for various aspects of SEHC management have been higher than 80% based on NEA's surveys between 2021 and 2024. Stall occupancy rates are at about 96%. Nevertheless, we always welcome and have heard your feedback.”
“SEHC operators explain the value meal requirement upfront to stallholders when signing the tenancy agreements. Each stallholder then has the flexibility to propose his or her value meal item, while retaining the prerogative to offer other food options at higher prices. This takes into account their costs and pricing strategies. Operators will also review their value meal prices from time to time and have previously adjusted prices upwards based on feedback from stallholders. Importantly, stallholders are not expected to make a loss from selling such value meals as they should have taken these into consideration when negotiating the rent with the operators. Some Members have also asked about charitable meal schemes. So far, only Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre has such a scheme. The operator's Pay-It-Forward initiative was a well-intentioned initiative to give lower-income members of our community some additional support as part of our shared interest to make the hawker centre an inclusive community dining option. The scheme was made known to stallholders upfront before they decided whether to rent stalls at this particular SEHC. NEA was also aware of the scheme. Therefore, stallholders who decided to proceed with renting stalls at the centre, rather than choose other centres without such a scheme, would have factored the costs into their business consideration. Notwithstanding this, I understand that the operator has not implemented the scheme to-date and following feedback from stallholders and the public, the operator has decided to remove the requirement from new agreements and tenancy renewals. Some operators have developed phone apps which offer discounts to loyal customers.”
“The key features of NEA's guidelines had been made public during the Parliamentary debates in 2018 and 2024. Before stallholders sign these tenancy agreements with an operator, NEA would review the agreements and engage operators to adjust their clauses if necessary. Since 2019, the NEA has capped stall rentals to average independently-valued rents, as well as discounted rent in the first two years of a centre's operation as we recognise that an SEHC's footfall and operations would require time to be built up and stabilise. Beyond these guidelines, operators have the flexibility to state the other terms of their agreements with stallholders, based on operational needs. However, these terms must be made upfront by operators, so that hawkers can make informed decisions based on their business preferences and cost considerations. Operators must also explain these terms clearly to stallholders. NEA officers would usually be present at these tenancy agreements signing sessions. After tenancy agreements are signed, operators must not impose any charges that were not specified in the agreements. As tenancy agreements are private arrangements between the operators and stallholders, it would not be appropriate for NEA to mandate public disclosure. Some Members have asked about affordable meal options. In line with the primary mission of hawker centres to provide affordable food options, NEA requires SEHC operators, as part of tender requirements, to implement ways to make food affordable. So far, SEHC operators have done so by making at least one value meal available at each stall. Value meals are part of the range of food options afforded by the SEHCs at variety price points.”
“My response to this Parliamentary Question (PQ) will also cover questions filed by Mr Gerald Giam, Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik, Mr Ng Shi Xuan1 and Ms He Ting Ru regarding Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres (SEHCs). If their questions have been addressed in today's combined response, they may wish to withdraw their questions. Mr Speaker, I thank Members for raising various questions about SEHCs. I will explain the SEHC management model and address various concerns, including the Government's role in overseeing SEHC operators and their relationship with stallholders. When the Government resumed building hawker centres in 2011, we introduced the SEHC. This is to harness the experience and expertise of food and beverage (F&B) industry players to bring fresh perspectives and best practices to hawker centre management, active placemaking and meeting residents' needs for accessibility to affordable food options across all three meals. The National Environment Agency (NEA) maintains oversight over operators who are appointed to maintain and manage SEHCs. Operators must comply with the requirements set out by NEA. These requirements strike a balance between ensuring that patrons' needs are adequately served and safeguarding stallholders' well-being. NEA also seeks to provide SEHC operators with sufficient flexibility to allow them to operate SEHCs effectively. To safeguard the interests of stallholders, the NEA has, and since 2018, put in place basic guidelines for tenancy agreement terms. For instance, stalls should not be required to be open for more than five days per week and no more than eight hours a day, and limits are set on amounts that operators can charge stallholders for contractual breaches.”