Koh Poh Koon
Singapore
“In 2025, for walk-in patients, the median and 95th percentile doctor consultation waiting times were eight minutes and 72 minutes respectively. However, the Ministry of Health (MOH) does not track waiting times by peak versus off-peak hours, but it is likely that 95th percentile waiting times happened during peak hours.”
“The offences and penalties for importing, supplying or abusing SPS products are similar to those in the MDA, to ensure similar level of deterrence. Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a handout that summarises the changes in legislative penalties for key offences.”
“So, if you are a Singaporean student, you will expect that there will be some subsidies to the fees. The third question on how can the public, who may want to seek psychological care, know who is legitimate.”
“Sir, I thank the Member for his question on audiologists. In general, a qualified audiologist in Singapore needs a higher level of certification because a diploma level may not be quite enough to perform the task. So, we will look and see whether there is a way to actually find an in-between.”
“We are starting with registration to give formal recognition to those who are practising in higher risk sub-sectors in psychology and making sure that the quality, the standards and the support is given to them to deliver the care that the clients and the patients need.”
“It takes a bit of, not just system change in the providers, in the doctors and the care teams, but also, a gradual shift in the mindset of our population as well. So, it is something that we have to continue to do. There is no magic bullet to this and it is not something we can achieve overnight. 12.15 pm”
The complete record
Every one of 1,209 lines we hold for Koh Poh Koon, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 25.
“Sir, cases such as the stabbing incident that the Member referred to, are serious crimes and best dealt with by the Police. The Police do not track the number of harassment or violence-related crimes against platform workers per se. To date, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has not received any complaints from platform workers about harassment or violence.”
“Out of around 7,000 cooked food stalls, only 4% of rent today are above their Assessed Market Rent which has a median of around $1,250.”
“Out of our 7,000 cooked food stalls, only 4% of rent today are above the Assessed Market Rent of $1,250. [Please refer to "Hawker Culture", Official Report, 13 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 147, Motions section.] [(proc text) Written statement by Dr Koh Poh Koon circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)] I wish to make the following factual correction to my speech during the Motion on Hawker Culture during the Sitting on 13 November 2024. My reply should read as follows:”
“They are not the norm. In fact, the one that got everybody's attention is actually the only one in the last five years. Like I said, the vast majority of bids – 44% of them – got the bids below the Assessed Market Rent, which means close to half of the stalls actually pay in the first tenancy term less than the Assessed Market Rent. And the number of bids that are in that stratospheric range is actually a very small number. I hope we would not discard a system that has worked well and benefited a large number of hawkers just because of one outlier bid.”
“I think that is something where we are still trying to make sure we hold fast to the original concept of what a hawker stall and a hawker centre is. But in time to come, when demographics change, there may well be a need for us to make further moves. But let us see what the current measures help the hawkers first. On PQM, in my speech, I did say that today, in some of our SEHCs already practise PQM. So, it is not something that we are averse to; it is something that we already tried in our SEHCs. But it is easier to be done when there is actually an operator who has a business concept behind it, who has a certain idea how that particular centre is to be run in terms of placemaking and programming, so that, with a price quality matrix, he selects a certain complementary type of stalls to operate in there with a certain business model in mind. Whereas in the typical NEA-managed hawker centre, which is running through a bidding system, it really is more of a kind of mix that is determined by what the market wants, rather than a placemaker per se trying to curate and decide which stall can run in a hawker centre. I hope you understand what I am trying to get at with the different models between what the SEHC is and what a typical NEA-managed hawker centre is like. The third point is about awarding the highest bidder but making him pay the second highest bid. I think that will make the second highest bidder a bit aggrieved, would it not? If you are going to award the second highest bid, then why did I not get it, but you give it to the highest bidder? Because I think to be fair and transparent, the highest bidder actually should be the one to be given the stall. But as I said, if the concern is about outlier bids, today, the outlier bids are a rare occurrence.”
“Sir, I thank the Member for raising this clarification. I think on the issue of foreign workers, in my speech, I did say that actually, there is no science to it. It is about what society can accept over time as the population ages, workforce dwindles and the nature of hawker centres may evolve and the society is prepared to accept. But now we have just made a move to liberalise through LTVP+. So, that provides an additional expanded source of potential labour that the hawkers can tap into. Let us see what this move does and what the effect is first, before we decide whether it is appropriate to make further moves. The comparison with food courts is not exactly a correct one because there is a difference with hawker centres where we want to preserve the UNESCO heritage. In a hawker centre, the stallholders themselves operate the stalls. That is one of the requirements that they cannot outsource to someone else to manage the stalls. They have to tend to the stalls themselves so that they are the ones who ply the trade. But once we change the model to one in which the stall owners can now hire a certain complement of foreign workers or even local workers for that matter to run the stall instead of themselves, you are then turning it into potentially a franchise model where now the actual operator is not the one cooking. It is someone else doing the cooking and this person becomes a business owner hiring different workers, local or otherwise, to work across different stalls rather than he himself running the stall with his own special touch, special recipe. So, there is an inherent change in the nature of how hawker centres will become.”
“I think the guidelines are meant to guide the behaviour between the operator and the hawkers that are working at this hawker centre. So, if there are issues in which the contract that is drafted is actually in violation of the guidelines, NEA will take a look at it and give relevant penalties. Or should the offence be egregious, at the next contract renewal term, this operator will not be favourably looked upon and the operator will not be able to get the next contract renewal.”
“Sir, in the model in which we work with the SEHC operators, we pay them a management fee so that they actually can operate the hawker centres. If there are any extra profits that they gain, 50% of it must then, as I said in my main reply, be put into providing programmes that enhance the activities of the hawker centre. So, there will be an audit conducted by NEA on their actual earnings so that we can make that decision and make sure that there is no extra profiteering involved. Sorry, can I have the Member's second question?”
“Again, this is not a new suggestion. I remember Mr Melvin Yong asking me in a PQ before, probably just about a couple of months ago. Let me explain that while balloting could provide an equal chance to all to obtain a stall at an upfront fixed rate, what balloting could also do is to encourage frivolous applications and excess demand for stalls at popular locations. This may not be fair to prospective tenderers with a genuine intent to set up a new stall because they will see their chances dwindle as more people come in and crowd into that space for a limited number of stalls. And such a situation will not benefit patrons as well.”
“One in five awarded below $500; more than 300 stalls paying less than $100 a month, some even at $1. In fact, 44% of bidders were actually able to secure their bids below the Assessed Market Rent. So, our system has actually kept rental prices reasonably affordable; in fact, a good number below the Assessed Market Rent. Stall demand remains healthy: in fact, vacant stalls put up for tender received an average of 7.2 bids per stall and are successfully re-tendered within three to six months. So, overall, the tender system is working. We have made recent changes and we expect to see some positive impact. We will continue to review, taking in suggestions and feedback from Members and from hawkers themselves to continue improving the system. There are many views on the current price tender system model and what might be a better alternative that could replace it. Even the PSP itself has different views and proposed different options as well. For example, Mr Leong Mun Wai suggested one method based on percentage of gross turnover with a base rent. But this will require a point-of-sale system for every stall in order to be able to track what the takings really are. Ms Hazel Poa also proposed that we abandon the tender system and change it to a balloting one. She also suggested perhaps a fixed rent model as well. As Mr Keith Chua noted, there really would not be a perfect system. But we will keep trying. For example, we also started to do the price quality method at our SEHC models where rent is pre-determined and stalls are awarded by the operators. So, we are open to trying different methods and see what works best. Let me take this chance to address some of the suggestions that Ms Poa has raised, one of which is to abandon the tender system to a balloting one.”
“This market mechanism has helped to shape our current hawker centre landscape. It is responsive to consumers' demands and changing expectations for hawker food, and it is fair for both hawkers and consumers. Those who can offer tasty meals that consumers feel are value for money will continue to do well, while those who are priced too high and do not meet consumers' taste expectations will eventually exit. This works in tandem with other measures by the Government to moderate hawker stall rents, which we regularly review and improve. Today, there is no reserve rent or minimum bid price. This enables bidders to obtain stalls at low rental rates. In fact, over 300 stalls were obtained at bids below $100 over the last three years. A few in 2023 and 2024 even won bids with rents as low as $1. So, it is not a myth. There are stalls which are going at $1 bid price. We saw that subletting of stalls led to higher rents in the past. So, we moved in 2012 to disallow such subletting. After the first tenancy period of three years, rental is adjusted towards the Assessed Market Rent. We recently reviewed and changed this policy to stagger the downward adjustment of tendered rent over a longer period, in fact, over two tenancy renewals instead of one. This will also discourage prospective hawkers from putting in excessively high tender bids. It is not a perfect system, but collectively, our rental policies at NEA-managed hawker centres have served us reasonably well. Occupancy rates for cooked food stalls have remained high, averaging above 95%. In 2023, the median successful tender price for cooked food stalls was about $1,800 and about one in five cooked food stalls were awarded at tender prices at or below $500. So, some key numbers here.”
“The Government also extends generous subsidies to a segment of our Pioneer hawkers, who make up around 30% of cooked food stallholders. For them, the rent is heavily subsidised at about $300 per month and this can be transferred to the immediate family members of the pioneer hawkers at the same low rent. I believe Mr Melvin Chew whom I spoke about earlier is also a beneficiary of this legacy system. Let me now touch on rent at NEA-managed hawker centres. The Government builds hawker centres and does not use rent for cost recovery. Let me say that again: the Government builds hawker centres and does not use the rent for cost recovery. The rents are, in fact, determined by what the tenderer bids for and can be as low as $1. The PSP and Mr Louis Chua raised the issue of rent and the bidding system for stall rentals. Our policy is for non-subsidised stalls in NEA-managed hawker centres to be allocated via a tender system in which the stalls are tendered to the highest bidder, who pays the bid price for the first tenancy period of three years. This process is open, transparent and straightforward for prospective hawkers to understand. It is not a complicated system. A bidding system enables market mechanisms to work at hawker centres. The process encourages prospective hawkers that are committed and serious to come forward and submit a bid. Before doing so, prospective hawkers would have to take into account the operating realities, business costs and decide on what kind of food they wish to sell. They know that what they bid will be what they have to pay. Once the stall is opened, consumers will decide. The quality and the price of the food will determine how well the stall will fare and how sustainable the stall will be.”
“This centralised procurement idea is already present at some SEHCs, where operators have tapped on their network in the F&B and food supply sectors to offer bulk purchasing services. With such services, their stallholders have the option to secure preferential rates for raw ingredients. But from our experience, there are limitations. So far, the uptake among stallholders has not been widespread as most already have established relationships with their existing suppliers or are quite particular about the source and quality of the ingredients. Remember what I said earlier about the unique nature of our hawker centres is that each stall is run by the hawkers themselves, with unique recipes and special touches. Everyone has something they want to put as special to differentiate themselves from their competitors. Nonetheless, we will continue to support such initiatives where it benefits our hawkers. Apart from manpower, the Government has also implemented measures to ensure reasonable rent for hawkers and to address concerns on rent. By keeping rent affordable, we can help make the cost of doing business lower for our hawkers, even if it is not by a large percentage, because rent is less than 10% of the operating cost. Generally, stall rentals at hawker centres are lower than nearby eating establishments, such as coffee shops, food courts and small eateries. For majority of cooked food stallholders in our hawker centres, the median rent is around $1,250 per month and has remained relatively stable for the past 10 years. This has been the case even while overall prices have continued to rise over the decade. This also means, therefore, that the rent is now a smaller component of their costs compared to 10 years ago.”
“This is why at Parliament last month, I had announced that starting from 1 January 2025, NEA will allow hawkers to hire LTVP or LTVP+ holders with Letters of Consent (LOC) or Pre-approved LOCs to work as their stall assistants at hawker centres managed by NEA and NEA-appointed operators, regardless of family ties. Of course, many Members would be aware that prior to this, stallholders could only appoint such LTVP or LTVP+ holders to work as their stall assistants if they had a spousal relationship and even then, on a case-by-case basis. Now, hawkers can hire from an expanded pool of these potential stall assistants who are already part of a Singapore family nexus. This is one example of how we continually review and adjust our policies to adjust to changing circumstances. But the reality is that each additional headcount is an added cost to our hawkers. So, a more sustainable approach to manpower is to make every person more productive. Therefore, NEA has implemented measures to support hawkers in enhancing their productivity, which can help lighten the pressures of their manpower constraints. At the centre level, the Productive Hawker Centres (PHC) programme provides up to 70% tiered subsidy for centres to adopt centralised dishwashing for up to four years. At the individual stall level, the Hawkers' Productivity Grant (HPG) provides 80% co-funding for hawkers to purchase kitchen automation equipment and digital solutions, such as queue management systems. A key business cost hawkers deal with is raw materials. Ms Hazel Poa raised the suggestion on centralised procurement to moderate such costs. This is not a new suggestion. I believe in an earlier Parliamentary Sitting, Mr Melvin Yong did raise one of these suggestions in a PQ.”
“But there are differences between hawker centres and other food establishments. Private coffee shops and F&B establishments operate like SMEs, so they are subjected to the usual quota system that MOM applies to all operating businesses here in Singapore. Our hawker centres, on the other hand, are an integral part of our cultural heritage. They are unique and their local nature is something we want to preserve, which is why we thought very carefully about making such moves. This is why we calibrate any relaxation on restrictions on who can work at our hawker centres very carefully. As I have said earlier, full liberalisation of manpower in hawker centres would significantly alter the makeup and the feel of these centres. There is really no science to this question. It is really about what we are all prepared to accept as a society. Are we prepared to accept that the hawker centre that we are familiar with changes in nature to something quite different? So, I think this is something that will probably have to evolve over time. If Members recall, in the early 2010s, there was significant concern among Singaporeans about seeing more foreigners working in hawker centres. And this very issue was raised in this House, which Mr Edward Chia has earlier on also shared with Members what transpired in Parliament in 2010. So, we need to strike a balance. As some Singaporeans may still not be able to accept seeing a significant alteration in a make-up of hawker centres, we will adjust and evolve our policies to take these views into account. Having said that, we do want to help ease some of the manpower challenges our hawkers face.”
“The Government has implemented policies to support our hawkers by providing a conducive operating environment. We review these policies regularly to ensure that they are aligned with operating realities on the ground and for hawker centres to serve the needs of both hawkers and consumers. We recognise the cost pressures that hawkers face. In fact, according to an NEA survey, on average in 2023, cost of food ingredients accounts for nearly 60% of the operating cost. Manpower cost comes in second at 20%. Rental made up less than 10% of operating costs in hawker centres. Mr Leong Mun Wai also acknowledges that rent is not a major cost component in his speech earlier. While Government does not regulate hawker food prices, NEA has measures in place to provide a conducive operating environment for hawkers. First, on manpower costs, we have been paying close attention to two aspects: improving access to manpower and improving hawkers' productivity. The income of hawkers is very much dependent on how many meals they can serve a day, especially during peak hours. There is only so much that one pair of hands can do. We understand hawkers' challenges in hiring stall assistants. This is something we need to balance with safeguarding the local identity of our hawker culture. We do so by ensuring that being a stallholder at NEA's hawker centres remains reserved for Singapore Citizens and PRs. In doing so, we also ensure low barriers to entry for Singaporeans who wish to enter the F&B business through the hawker trade. In Mr Leong Mun Wai and Mr Louis Chua's speeches earlier, they suggested allowing one Work Permit holder per stall to work as stall assistants. The suggestion is not inconceivable actually and there are real needs that the hawkers face in sourcing for manpower.”
“We know the difficult operating environment and challenges our hawkers face, as well as Singaporeans' desire for affordable hawker food. These are difficult tensions to balance and there is no simple solution or easy fix. We agree with Mr Leong Mun Wai that the Government has a role to play in supporting our hawkers. That is what the Government has been doing. For decades now, since we gathered itinerant street hawkers into our hawker centres and, through our policies, sought to provide hawkers with a conducive operating environment. As we have restarted building hawker centres from 2011, we set out to better address the needs of Singaporeans. In so doing, we also set out with a forward-looking mindset to test and explore new models that would allow us to safeguard hawker livelihoods and consumers' needs, while keeping our hawker centre landscape responsive to an evolving operating context. I will explain more about the SEHC model later. We need to find a way, as a society, to keep hawker fare affordable, while ensuring that hawkers can earn a fair living. Underpinning this solution must be a strong social compact that brings all stakeholders together. The Government foots the cost of building hawker centres and sets policies to support our hawkers and provide them with a conducive operating environment, to ensure that they are able to provide Singaporeans with affordable food at our hawker centres. The local community and private sector have a role in driving ground-up initiatives to support both hawkers and patrons and we heard many examples earlier. Consumers can support our hawkers by patronising them and being prepared to pay a fair price for hawker food to uplift the livelihoods of our hawkers.”
“Over the years, the income of a typical hawker has remained lower than the average Singaporean and corresponds to around the second lowest income decile, which means the lowest 20% in 2022. This low income is also a point noted by Mr Leong Mun Wai earlier in his speech. Like everyone, our hawkers need an income that is sustainable over time. This has implications for the sustainability of the hawker trade. Today, the median age of our hawkers is 60 years old. As our ageing hawkers gradually retire, we will need new blood to sustain the hawker trade. At present, fortunately nearly all of our cooked food stalls are occupied. But if hawkers cannot make a decent livelihood, the hawker trade would become much less attractive to our younger generation who have many more career options. This is a point also noted by Mr Louis Chua earlier. Another tension arises as we try to help hawkers manage their manpower costs while we seek to preserve the "local" identity of our hawker culture and heritage. Our policy of only allowing Singaporeans and PRs to be stallholders at hawker centres serves to safeguard this precious aspect of our Singaporean identity. I recognise that our hawkers face the practical challenge of hiring non-locals to ease manpower constraints. But a full liberalisation for foreign manpower may alter the nature of our hawker centres significantly. So, these are competing tensions and there are, unfortunately, no easy solutions. Our recent moves seek to strike a careful balance, by allowing more LTVP or LTVP+ holders – who have nexus and ties to Singaporean families – to be stall assistants, which would hopefully help in some way. The Government fully acknowledges the impact of global inflation on the affordability of hawker food and the livelihoods of hawkers.”
“Our hawkers are generally mindful of the profile of the customers they serve and they try their best to hold off any price increases. But hawkers need to be able to price their food realistically and adjust them from time to time. I echo the anecdote that Mr Edward Chia shared in his speech, about Mr Zuhairi who runs Project Penyek at Senja Hawker Centre. The worries shared by Mr Zuhairi about the rising cost of just one ingredient, chilli, as well as ingredient wastage when customers prefer just to eat the different part of a chicken, may sound quite trivial for us who wonder why there is so much fuss about just a little bit of extra sambal or picking the part of the chicken that we order. But these are the cost components that have a direct impact on a hawker's earnings, which are already not high to begin with. Absorbing price increases of ingredients would effectively mean a pay cut for a hawker, on top of the already slim margins. I am sure many Singaporeans can empathise with this, even as price increases are not always easy to accept for anyone. There is another dimension to this, which is that hawkers inherently face limitations to how much they can sell and earn, because they operate the stalls themselves. Many earn less than $1 per meal that is served. But let us take just for illustration, a hawker who manages to make a $1 profit per bowl of noodle he or she sells. He or she will need to sell 200 portions of meals a day for six days a week, in order to earn the $5,000 median income of an average Singaporean. Most do not sell as many meals or earn as much per portion of food they sell. As Mr Edward Chia's example has highlighted, many hawkers barely make 30-cents or 40-cents per meal that they sell.”
“Global food prices have been volatile in recent years due to supply chain disruptions resulting from climate change and geopolitical events. Several Members have said so as well. We feel this impact keenly because Singapore imports over 90% of our food. Singaporeans are understandably concerned about how much they pay for food at our hawker centres. Hawkers, like all of us, also feel these pressures, as the cost of ingredients form a large part of their operating cost, as you have heard from some of the speakers earlier as well. In pricing their food, many hawkers struggle between keeping food affordable for their loyal customers while trying to raise prices to cover the increases in ingredient and manpower costs. This is a struggle that many of us in the House, I believe, can empathise with. I know that a good number of hawkers have kept their food prices unchanged over the years. One of our hawkers is here with us today. Mr Melvin Chew, who runs Jin Ji Teochew Braised Duck and Kway Chap at Chinatown Complex Market and Food Centre, shared with me recently, that he had maintained his food prices for over 20 years since the 2000s to offer $3 meals to his customers. While he had previously considered raising prices, I understand he decided to maintain his $3 meals to benefit the older folks staying in the area. It was only after the pandemic that he raised prices to $4 to cope with the rising business costs. Another example is Mr Macheal s/o Aumeer Ali. Macheal sells wanton noodles at Tanglin Halt Market. He maintained his prices at $3.50 over five years to serve the seniors from Tanglin Halt Estate who form most of his clientele. Only in late-2023 did he increase prices to $4, due to rising costs over the years. It is not easy for hawkers to earn a fair living.”
“] To keep this unique character of our hawker centres, our hawker policy will need to reflect three fundamental objectives and principles. First, to ensure that hawker centres remain our community dining room, providing Singaporeans with affordable food options. Second, to ensure hawkers have a decent livelihood and so, ensure that there is long-term sustainability of the hawker trade. Thirdly, to preserve our unique local hawker culture and the identity that is unique here. These principles apply regardless of how we run our hawker centres, whether they are managed by NEA or by operators under our newer SEHC model. I will address the different operating models later in my speech. I listened to Mr Leong Mun Wai's speech and that of many other Members today. No one will disagree with the three objectives I spelt out earlier. Each of them are important. But in trying to achieve all three objectives at the same time, we must recognise that there are inherent tensions that, sometimes, pull in opposite directions. For instance, addressing consumers' desire for lower food prices can inadvertently run counter to our wish to support our hawkers in making a decent living. Without a decent income, it will be difficult to attract young Singaporeans, who have many career options, to enter this trade. Similarly, allowing more foreigners to work in our hawker centres may alleviate cost and manpower concerns for our hawkers, but it could dilute our local hawker culture and identity, and change the feel and nature of our hawker centres. As such, there is a need to strike a balance between the interests of all parties. Singaporeans face cost-of-living pressures on many fronts, especially in recent years due to global inflation.”
“Like many of you, I go to different hawker centres to savour the authentic differences in flavour, even of the same dish. Each hawker centre has its own character and a different mix of food choices. This is why we all have our own choice of favourite hawker dishes, even our own choice of favourite hawker centres and we often debate endlessly on which hawker centre has the best chicken rice or where we can find the best nasi lemak. While some hawkers have done well and opened stalls in other hawker centres, and some have even ventured out into the restaurant space, as noted by Mr Keith Chua, the vast majority of stalls at our hawker centres are generally run by stallholders themselves, who prepare each dish meticulously with their unique touches as it is ordered, and retain its individuality, unlike a franchise. So, we can all agree that if a hawker centre becomes replaced by franchises, the texture and the nature of a hawker centre as we know it today, will be quite different. Hawker centres are such a unique and central part of our national identity that in December 2020, hawker culture in Singapore was inscribed onto the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. Singaporeans and Members of this House across both sides of the aisle will agree with me, that this unique Singaporean institution must be nurtured, supported and protected to ensure that our hawker centres and hawkers can thrive for generations to come. Some of our hawker heroes are gathered at the Gallery today – even at this time, some of them have stoically stayed on. I would like to acknowledge their presence and thank them for coming down today even as we discuss this important issue late into the evening. Thank you very much. [Applause.”
“Mr Speaker, our hawker centres are an integral part of Singaporeans' daily lives and our national identity. They are vibrant melting pots of diverse and affordable local food that tell stories of Singapore, how different cultures interweave into a unique heritage of who we are as a people. They are community dining rooms where Singaporeans from all walks of life gather, socialise, interact over good food in an informal setting. Hawker centres are special and quite different from food courts and restaurants. Our hawker centres are special because of the hawkers that make them come to life. They are our community kitchens, where hawkers thrive as masters of their craft to serve comfort food beloved by Singaporeans and famous worldwide. These hawkers often specialise in specific heritage dishes, such as Hainanese chicken rice, Nyonya laksa, nasi lemak or roti prata. I know this is the time of the day when everyone gets hungry, but I just cannot help but mention some of these delicacies in our hawker centres. Our hawkers work long hours, often more than 14 hours a day, especially on weekends and public holidays, to serve us our comfort food. Many have dedicated their lives to perfecting specific dishes, often passing down skills, special recipes and cultural traditions from one generation to the next. Each dish is unique to a particular hawker stall because it is infused with the special recipe and the master touch of the hawker. The flavour of char kway teow from Hong Lim Park Hawker Centre is different from the one at Zion Riverside Food Centre and I like both of them. Yes, doctors do eat char kway teow as well, but I must say, please do it in moderation. These two char kway teows, they are my favourites and, I am sure, they each have their own hardcore supporters.”
“Sir, I thank the Member for raising this concern. In fact, I think the Singapore Medical Journal article that the Member cited was published in 2020 and that predates the more recent one that has been published in September 2024, conducted also by the NUS Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health in the peer-reviewed journal. When I replied earlier in my main reply, I did say that this study, which surveyed migrant workers, found that 96% of them were able to access primary health services in Singapore, partly because we designed it in such a way that it is located either in the dormitory itself, where there is an in-dormitory clinic, or the PCP providers have a facility located around where migrant workers actually stay, where the dormitories are co-located. So, it is really sited in a physically accessible place and in proximity to where the migrant workers congregate, to make sure that there should be as little barrier or challenge as possible for them navigating and finding that physical location. We also disseminate some of this information on how to get into telehealth through the dormitory operators and many of our NGO partners. So, migrant workers, as long as they use the MOM app, would be able to get information on the nearest PCP medical facility that is available to them. The other way which we try to make sure that the migrant workers are aware is through regular roadshows, as I said earlier. So, we will continue to do so. But I think the initial study and survey by the Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health has shown us that even with the initial roll-out in a short couple of years since we started the PCP programme, it has reached a good penetration and the workers themselves are aware.”
“And unless there is consent given by the individual, including migrant workers who have the right to their own medical confidentiality, it will not be reasonable for us to report some of these conditions back to the employers. But there are ways in which we can help the migrant workers to manage their chronic conditions better, which is why I mentioned earlier about the health booklet, so that these things are documented in the booklet and, through the regular consultations at the clinic by the migrant workers, counselling can be given to these workers to encourage them to take a more proactive stance in managing their chronic medical conditions. Other things like roadshows that are conducted at places like the recreation centres where the migrant workers go on their days off, can help to strengthen this understanding of how they should take better care of their chronic medical conditions. So, we do need to strike a balance between ensuring privacy, but also making sure that the workers are able to gradually, over time, take care of their chronic health conditions better. I must also say that the approach to manage chronic care conditions is no different from what we do in our general population. As we know, generally, most people, when they do not feel anything about the high blood pressure or their diabetes, they may not take proactive actions. So, it is not an unusual mentality in our migrant workers. It is quite common in all of us to procrastinate sometimes when we have a chronic condition that may not produce immediate symptoms. So, public education, health education and continued encouragement are the way to go, and we hope to do so through many of our NGO partners as well.”
“Sir, I thank the Member for her two questions. First, on telemedicine. The design of our PCP programme is such that the primary care providers, the doctors and the clinics that are providing these services, are given a dispensation to employ doctors who are able to speak in the native languages of the migrant workers so that there are less language barriers when the migrant workers seek care, whether in person or via telemedicine. Of course, telemedicine runs 24 hours. So, during certain hours, they may not be able to get a particular doctor who can speak that native language because our migrant workers do come from a very diverse range of different source countries. So, this is something that the providers will look at and see how they can best enhance the care to be delivered to these workers in the most appropriate manner. But we must recognise that telemedicine can be a useful adjunct to this because, as I said earlier, the bulk of the conditions that the migrant workers report to the medical centres are really for minor ailments, acute respiratory conditions as well as musculoskeletal aches and pains, which generally do not require very intensive or in-depth medical consultation. This is something which telemedicine can fill a gap to strike a balance between accessibility of care, cost affordability and also convenience for our workers, so they have less hesitation to step up and seek help when needed. On the second question of whether there are ways to report back chronic medical conditions to employers, I think we have to be very careful here because medical information is very much confidential to the individual.”
“Recognising that good health management starts from preventive health and chronic disease management, MOM launched Project MOCCA in 2021. Project MOCCA, which stands for "Management of Oral and Chronic Conditions and Ailments", is a preventive health framework that aims to encourage early detection and management of common chronic and oral health conditions among our migrant workers. To raise preventive health measures, MOM set-up an online Health Library on health education materials in several native languages for easy access by the migrant workers. We also produced physical health booklets for distribution to migrant workers at health roadshows, conducted with community partners and the PCP doctors. With the support of corporate donors and non-government organisation (NGO) partners, workers can also receive low-cost basic dental treatments at some NGO-run dental clinics. MOM has made significant efforts in recent years to enhance the quality of healthcare for migrant workers. We will continue to work with our partners to ensure that quality care is provided at an affordable cost. We also urge employers to encourage their migrant workers to make use of the available resources and healthcare services designed for them, as good health management helps employers manage healthcare costs in the long term and increase productivity at work.”
“Sir, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has put in place several measures to ensure that migrant workers have access to the medical treatment they need. Under the Employment of the Foreign Manpower Act, employers are required to bear the cost of medical fees incurred by their Work Permit and S Pass holders. To better protect employers from large hospitalisation and surgical expenses, MOM enhanced the mandatory medical insurance for Work Permit and S Pass holders in 2023 by increasing the annual claim limit to $60,000, up from $15,000. In addition, to enhance accessibility and affordability of outpatient care for migrant workers, MOM implemented the Primary Care Plan (PCP) in April 2022. Medical Service Providers offering these Primary Care Plans operate in-dorm clinics and outpatient medical centres in the vicinity of migrant worker catchment areas to ensure that workers can see a doctor promptly when they are unwell. The PCP benefits both employers and migrant workers. Employers pay a fixed annual capitation rate, giving them clarity of cost and protection against unexpected healthcare bills. Migrant workers pay a low co-payment fee of $2 and $5 per telehealth and in-person session respectively, so that they are not deterred from seeking medical care when they need it. A study conducted by the National University of Singapore (NUS) Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, published in September 2024 in a peer-reviewed journal, found that 96% of migrant workers surveyed were able to access primary health services in Singapore. Migrant workers sought medical attention mostly for acute respiratory infections and musculoskeletal conditions. About 4% of them self-reported to have at least one chronic disease, with hypertension and diabetes being the most prevalent.”
“Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 7 and 8 together, please?”
“Sir, I think it will be far better if there are specific examples of such occurrences to raise to our attention so that we can take a more targeted approach, because I cannot imagine that this is pervasive across all worksites. To minimise the effort that is needed and to be more targeted, it will be better if non-government organisations or perhaps particular worker groups that have such concerns, raise it so that we can take up the conversations with the particular stakeholders and coordinate the actions better.”
“Thank you, Sir. I understand the Member's concern. But I think what he is describing is a problem more of logistics and arrangements between perhaps the company and the deployment of workers. It is not really an issue of when the food is prepared or when the caterer delivers the food. But it is the coordination between the timing of when the food needs to be consumed, which is between the operator on the ground and the workers or the company. So, it is something that the company needs to communicate to the caterer about, on when they want the food delivered. Otherwise, the kitchen would not know when the worker is going to consume the food. They will just deliver the food as ordered. So, it is more of a coordination issue, not something that can be easily solved with a particular policy per se, because there are different archetypes of worksites, different company lunch timings and different staggered shifts for workers to eat. There are so many combinations. It is important that companies on the ground, for the welfare of the workers, communicate with the caterer on when they want the food delivered so that it will be consumed in a timely manner. But if there are specific instances of worksites or workers who feel that the arrangement has been inadequate, they could approach our Assurance, Care and Engagement, or ACE, officers so that we can perhaps facilitate the conversation, and more coordination can be done between the provider and the consumer.”
“Now, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."”
“Therefore, we are proposing consequential amendments to the Constitution, through the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill, to prohibit members of any platform work association or of any body or association affiliated to platform work associations from being a member of the Public Service Commission, Public Service personnel boards, Judicial Service Commission and Legal Service Commission. Sir, I beg to move.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Manpower, I beg to move, that the Bill be now read a Second time. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill 2024 is linked to the Platform Workers Bill 2024 which was passed in Parliament last month. To recap, Parliament passed the Platform Workers Bill to strengthen protections for platform workers providing platform services, such as ride hail and delivery services, in the areas of housing and retirement adequacy, financial protection in the case of work injury and representation. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] For representation, there will be a legal framework setting out the rights and obligations of both platform work associations and platform operators in dealing with each other. As the framework for employers and employees has worked well in preserving industrial harmony, it was a reference for the framework for platform operators and platform workers. Hence, platform work associations will be analogous to trade unions. Today, a member of any trade union or of any body or association affiliated to a trade union cannot be a member of the Public Service Commission, Public Service personnel boards, Judicial Service Commission and Legal Service Commission. This is to preserve impartiality and high standards in the Civil Service, the Judicial Service and the Legal Service. As platform work associations function like trade unions, the same consideration should apply, for parity.”
“Sir, to the Member's first question, the answer is that the rates we quoted apply only to cooked food stalls. And for the second question on whether we were going to liberalise it to, in general, Work Permit holders, the answer is, not at this moment. Because we still want to preserve the hawker culture, which is largely run by local Singaporeans, of course, with a small supplement from some LTVP+ LOC holders. The numbers today are very small to begin with. And while we want to help solve their manpower challenges in the immediate term, the more sustainable way forward is to continue to help them to adopt more resilient and more productive methods, which is why we enhanced the Productive Hawker Centre Grant to do things at a centralised level, to make the hawker centre more productive through things like centralised dishwashing, for example. We will also continue to enhance the Hawkers Productivity Grant, where the hawkers themselves can take on more productive methods of preparing their food. For example, with the grant, they can purchase food preparation processing equipment to do the meat mincing, vegetable chopping and also reduce their reliance on manpower to do these repetitive tasks. So, I think with these kinds of measures, we want hawkers to adopt a more productive approach to their business to be more sustainable, while for those who may still need some manpower, this is where the LTVP+ LOC liberalisation will help them to access some of these LTVP+ holders who are already here in Singapore on a permanent basis as part of a family nexus in Singapore, to be able to contribute economically as well.”
“But, in fact, this is a very small number of bids that go into this kind of stratospheric range.”
“Sir, I thank the Member for his supplementary question and the concern he has. Indeed, I think it is always good to help the stall owners make a more considered bid when it comes to bidding for a stall. But I would be cautious about putting in requirements that would make it much more difficult for a potential tenderer to put in a bid. When we say "doing due diligence", I think it could mean that we are going to impose a lot more onerous demands on the stall bidder to show a lot more information before we select the bid. And that itself could disadvantage hawkers who may not be able to put in, say, a certain proposal or show their financial standing. We do have to let the market, in some ways, select out those who can survive in a competitive marketplace. Bear in mind that in a typical hawker centre, it is not everyone who will be in the outlier pricing, and as I have said, these are a small number of stalls in the grand scheme of things. So, by and large, the kind of hawker offerings in a particular hawker centre will help to moderate prices of other stalls who may find that it is difficult for them to survive if they were to actually price themselves out the market. When we talk about "due diligence", I think it is putting out more information, so that they can also be clear about what they are bidding for. One thing which I said earlier is about putting more information on the NEA website, so that when the bidder comes in, he is aware of what his fellow stallholders are actually paying as market rent. We will take some of these considerations that the Member has raised and see how best we can, maybe, make adjustments even to the bidding process, so that these excessive high bids will be something that is lesser than what it is today.”
“And to ensure his longer-term viability, he would then have to be a bit more moderate about what kind of price he wants to bid for a stall. I think this is something that NEA would take back and see how much more granular information we can put out. Like I said, these are very rare circumstances where a small number or percentage of stallholders put in that kind of bid prices. I would say most hawkers do try to make sure that they bid at a price that is sustainable for their own businesses. And I think this is something that we will see how to enhance further.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his two supplementary questions. On his first question of whether NEA tracks hawker food prices in correlation to the rental they bid for, I do not have the data at hand. But I would say that in a price competitive market, in a hawker centre where there are multiple stalls offering food of different prices and different choices for consumers, it would be something that the market will have to take into account. In other words, a person who bid for a high rental price at the stall, will have to take into account what consumers can bear as well, so that he can keep his business viable. I think we have to allow the market to weed out those who are not competitive and unable to offer food at affordable prices where consumers will see this as good value for money, and allow some churn in the market so that at some point, the best operator with the best offering, in terms of taste and quality of the food with the price that consumers can bear, will be the one that eventually can succeed. Having said that, I must emphasise that high stall rental bids that the Member may be talking about are actually the outliers and not the norm. As in my reply earlier, the median cost of rental across our hawker centres has remained quite stable over the last few years. What we can do, in response to his second suggestion of putting some form of alert to help bidders to be more considered in their prices when it comes to bidding for a rental stall, is to put out a bit more granular information on the NEA website, so that a potential bidder would be more cognisant of the kind of price points that he is competing against, fellow stall owners in the same hawker centre.”
“NEA exercises some flexibility by allowing stallholders to appoint their spouses who are Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) or LTVP+ holders with a Letter of Consent (LOC) or Pre-approved LOC as their stall assistants, given their familial ties to the hawkers. To provide additional support to stallholders at hawker centres managed by NEA or NEA-appointed operators, we will further relax our policy to allow hawkers to hire LTVP or LTVP+ holders with LOCs or Pre-approved LOCs to work as their stall assistants. This policy will be effective from 1 January 2025. This suggestion was also previously raised by Mr Edward Chia in an earlier Parliamentary Question. I hope he will be happy that NEA is now making this move. We are also studying other support measures for hawkers and will share the details when ready. Sir, with your permission, may I say a few words in Mandarin? (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Hawkers face various cost pressures such as raw material and manpower cost. Currently, only Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents can be stallholders or work as stall assistants in hawker centres managed by NEA and NEA-appointed operators. These measures help to safeguard and preserve the local identity of our hawker culture. NEA also allows stallholders to appoint their spouses who are LTVP or LTVP+ holders with a LOC or Pre-approved LOC as their stall assistants. To provide additional support to stallholders at hawker centres to manage manpower challenges, we will further relax our policy to allow hawkers to hire LTVP or LTVP+ holders with LOCs or Pre-approved LOCs to work as their stall assistants. This policy will be effective from 1 January 2025. We are also studying other support measures for hawkers and will share the details when ready.”
“Thank you, Sir. The National Environment Agency (NEA) lets out vacant hawker stalls through monthly tender exercises, which are transparent and fair. After the first tenancy term of three years, tendered stalls are adjusted towards an assessed market rent determined through independent professional valuation. Since 2012, NEA has removed reserve rent and does not set a minimum bid price for hawker stall tenders. As such, tenderers can secure stalls at lower-than-market rent for the first tenancy term. This would not be attainable under a model where stalls are allocated at fixed rental rates. About one in five cooked food stalls was awarded tender prices at or below $500 a month in 2023. The median successful tender price for cooked food stalls across hawker centres was about $2,000 in 2022 and $1,800 in 2023. While some stalls at popular locations have attracted higher bids, such tender prices are not the norm. NEA is reviewing relevant policies at hawker centres to ensure that the system remains effective while keeping hawker food prices affordable. Hawkers face various cost pressures, such as raw material and manpower costs. To address manpower challenges, NEA has provided support through measures, such as the Productive Hawker Centres programme and the Hawkers' Productivity Grant to help stallholders improve productivity and reduce reliance on manpower. We are also looking at other ways to further ease manpower challenges. Currently, only Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents can be stallholders or work as stall assistants in hawker centres managed by NEA and NEA-appointed operators. These measures help to safeguard and preserve the local identity of our hawker centres.”
“Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister, I beg to move the amendment* to Ninth Schedule standing in the Minister's name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The amendments to clause 13 are required for the consistency across section 31(a) and section 31(1b) of the Work Injury Compensation Act to require both a designated employer's insurer and a designated platform operator's insurer to provide insurance. [(proc text) *The amendment read as follows: (proc text)] [(proc text) In page 182, line 8: to leave out "pay" and insert "provide". (proc text)] [(proc text) Amendment agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) The Ninth Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) The Tenth Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“What is more relevant is how much they are actually paying for the cost of wages to these workers that determines the WICA cost that they are paying in terms of premiums. So, I think we should probably give the market some time to come to an equilibrium. But the initial sensing from the insurers is that it will not be excessively much higher, compared to what WICA is today for employees of the same sector.”
“On the WICA costs, based on our engagement with insurers through the Platform Workers Work Injury Compensation Network, where we work with five or seven insurers to start with, their estimate is that the cost of WICA for platform workers will not be too much higher compared to the current WICA costs for drivers in the logistics or transport sector, for example. It may be slightly higher because, today, there is no actuarial data, so everyone is pricing a little bit more conservatively. But I think, over time, with real world data, and now that we know who is a platform worker once the Bill comes to pass, the true incident rate of injuries and the severity of injuries being reported will allow more accurate actuarial data and claims history to be established over time. So, insurers then will have some real data to make some adjustments to the insurance premium that they charge. In a competitive market, if there are more than five, seven, maybe even more insurers who are prepared to come in – today, there are 26 operating in the employee WICA space – if a certain number of them also continue to participate in this for platform workers, we think the competitive premiums will continue to keep the market viable in terms of cost to operators. Again, that part of the cost is also auditable, to determine how much it costs operators to put forth WICA compensations. A lot of people may think that WICA is charged on a per individual basis. But actually, the insurers look at this on a total wage cost basis. So, it is based on what the company is paying in terms of wages to their workers and the premium is calculated as such. So, it is irrelevant how many platform workers actually work for a particular platform company.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Pritam Singh for the questions. On the first question of cost transfer or pass-through to stakeholders, the thing that we think would be important to guard against any excessive cost increase or profiteering would be to make sure that the sector continues to remain competitive. So long as it is not monopolistic, there will be competition – competition for drivers, riders and competition also for customers. When that dynamic competition takes place, each platform will have to make sure that the cost that they are prepared to flow through, whether it is to the driver or to the customers, will have to be something that remains attractive to them both. Otherwise, they will lose either the share of available labour or they will lose the share of the available market. So, that is one. But many of the things that we talked about – cost of CPF on operators and cost of WICA on operators – these are numbers that can be audited. For example, because now all platform workers will need to at least pay MediSave and those who opt-in or are mandated will have to pay CPF to their Ordinary and Special Accounts, which means that at the backend, we will know, by working backwards, what is the total wage cost that a particular operator with a particular load of workers will be paying for CPF or their wages. In that case, we can then determine the true wage costs for each operator and can audit and see if there is some evidence of profiteering.”
“If they are on several apps and they choose to opt in and out, each time they make a decision, it is not just one operator that has to make system changes and incur administrative costs, all the apps that this person has signed up with, even if it is an app that he uses very infrequently, would have to then also reflect that same CPF opt-in or opt-out status. So, as a system, it becomes very complicated and the cost is not borne by just one operator, it will be borne by quite a number of operators. I think the complex nature of this work is such that people can sign up for an app and not use it for a long time, but suddenly can use it again for a few months in a row. So, the very difficult nature of this sector is such that we try to keep things as simple as possible and reduce the overall cost burden. As I said in my speech, the solutions that we propose may not be 100% perfect, but the fact is that this legislation aims at providing the basic protections that will level up the protection for this group of workers, for it to be at least as close to being on par as possible with other employees working in a similar sector and also earning a similar income. In terms of achieving retirement adequacy and housing adequacy, we think this is a good base to start from. For any other operational benefits and challenges that may come along the way, we created the representation framework to allow negotiations and discussions to take place on a bilateral basis.”
“Sir, I thank the Member for his suggestions. Obviously, anything is possible. But we have to take the approach of what is practical, how easy it is to implement and what cost it will be to the system overall. Whether there can be, for example, a base fee, that is something that the operators have to decide on whether that is something financially viable for them to do. We leave it to the platform work associations and operators to decide on the scope of negotiation, because it can differ from platform to platform. Some platforms may be prepared to offer that but, for other platforms, their business model and the cost structure may not allow that to happen. So, I think rather than have a one-size-fits-all regulation, we allow representation to take place so that from an association to an individual operator's business model basis, they can scope out what works best for them and decide even on the scope that they are prepared to discuss. It may well be that some operators will have different models that they have agreed on with the operators and they can see that as a way of advantage to attract more workers who like that kind of arrangements to work for them as well. This also maintains a competitive landscape among the different operators. But I would say also on the other aspect of opting in and out, whether it is time-dependent or a black-out period, whichever the construct may be, there will be quite a lot of challenges to implement because a particular platform worker could have been registered with several apps.”
“Sir, I call that a theoretical argument because if the Member takes the effort to talk to the platform operators, he will realise that the practical considerations and the challenges are real.”
“Sir, I understand the Member's positioning, to try and ensure as much protection as possible is given to platform workers. But having had deep conversations with our platform operators and the platform workers themselves, the desire on both sides is to make sure that administrative costs are reduced, the burden is reduced and choice is given to the workers. So, from a theoretical perspective, the Member may be right – put them in and then those who want to get out, can apply to get out. But the operators who have to bear onboarding costs, these are real costs. To put everybody on the system in the beginning will require system enhancements, put everybody in and making sure that everyone is onboarded and then subsequently, if a majority or a large number, or whichever number it may be, chooses to opt out, there will be an additional cost to process those people who want to get out. Whereas, if you let people decide that they want to come in, then the operator only needs to do it one time and process the onboarding cost for that worker coming onto the system. That is why in our construct, we disallow people from opting out thereafter, once they opt in, so that the operator only does one time of onboarding and does not have to keep flipflopping workers in and out. Opting out as a default is also a challenge because some workers may then choose to be out of one operator but not the other, and it becomes very messy for the operators to track whether this worker is on which system. So, I think for administrative ease and for simplicity of operating a very complex system with many combinations of worker preferences to begin with, we have decided, together with the operators and also the desire of the workers, to go for an opt-in system.”
“Sir, I do not want to prolong this, but I think it is important for Mr Singh to realise that the fact that we are even debating this legislative Bill today is a proof point of how the tripartite relationship that PAP and NTUC has endured for the last 60 years or more has allowed us to make this Bill a possibility today. So, just because the WP lost the relationship with worker unions long ago does not mean that because we can preserve relationship for 60 years that there is something wrong with the symbiotic relationship.”