Leong Mun Wai
Singapore
“Okay, yes, Mr Chairman. So, first question, can I confirm that MOM still does not track the change in work pass holders that turned to PRs in the resident PME statistics?”
“Yes. Third question, the increase in part-time workers and contract work are also examples of underemployment. Can the Minister explain why we do not need to be concerned that the proportion of part-time workers out of all employed residents has increased from 8.4% in 2009 to 10.1% in 2023, and can the Minister quote the corresponding inc…”
“Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I have four clarifications for the Minister. First of all, I would like to thank the Minister for his energetic response to my arguments. I have always respected him for that. However, because I think our views are still very different, I have —”
“For those who do not have a university degree, the prospects are even dimmer and younger workers also face the prospects of skills-related underemployment later in their career. Mr Chairman, let me conclude.”
“And I have three more. To many Singaporeans, including myself, the new policy does not make sense in certain areas. I agree with the Government that NRIC numbers, full or masked, should not be used as authentication, and that must be impressed on Singaporeans. Next question, why is there a need to do away with the masked NRIC policy?”
“In paragraph 40 of the report, it was stated that this July 2024 CM was also emailed to senior Public Service Leaders, including those with key responsibilities in IT and data matters within their agencies. Can I ask the Senior Minister whether any of these senior leaders have voiced concerns over the CM?”
The complete record
Every one of 978 lines we hold for Leong Mun Wai, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 20.
“PSP believes that this shows that these policies are not enough to resolve deeper societal issues that are discouraging Singaporeans from having children. As the birth rate continues to fall, the Government has largely relied on immigration to make up for the population shortfall. This is not ideal. We strongly believe that the Government should not continue to rely on immigration as a solution to our nation's low TFR. Instead, we have a duty to create conditions of economic and financial security so that Singaporeans can be optimistic about the future and feel confident about raising a child and build a society that is conducive for Singaporeans to start and raise families. Older Members of this House will recall that during the 1980s and 1990s, good job opportunities were plentiful in Singapore. HDB flat prices were affordable even for single income families. There was strong wage growth. "明天会更好" or "Tomorrow Will Be Better", was a popular Chinese song in the late 1980s. It captured the spirit of those times. It was common to have two children or even three children and we were confident that our children will have better lives than us. Today, with the rise of the gig economy, falling wage growth and resale HDB prices increasing faster than wages, Singaporeans are worried about their financial security. Many Singaporeans look at the million-dollar HDB flats in almost every town and wonder whether their children will be able to afford a decently sized HDB flat in the future. The majority of married couples need dual incomes to afford the cost of living in Singapore. Many young Singaporeans are also very worried about the impact of climate change. Many Singaporeans no longer have the confidence that the next generation would have better lives than ours.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore's TFR has been falling for many years. Last year, Elon Musk declared that Singapore is going extinct with our low birth rate. We do not need Elon Musk to point out that our low birth rate is a problem. During his first National Day Rally speech in 2004, then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had already pointed out that the low TFR was, I quote, "a very serious problem for us". At that time, Singapore's TFR was 1.26. It has since hit a new low of 0.97 in 2023. The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) stands firm behind families and family values. We understand that many Singaporeans desire to get married and have children, and we support these aspirations. However, it is ultimately a personal decision whether to get married and have children, and we respect these decisions too. Women are not duty bound to have children and neither should singles be ashamed or treated differently because they are not married. I have a quote on my Facebook page since I entered politics in 2020, "Politics decide how a society looks like and society conditions what a person can do or cannot do. We seek to establish the right kind of politics in our country so that all Singaporeans can perform to his full potential." I believe that each person makes the best possible life decisions for himself or herself under the socio-economic circumstances created by the Government and the society. Accordingly, I also believe that the low TFR we see today is a result of the socio-economic circumstances that have been created by our Government's policies over the years. Despite decades of policies, like the Baby Bonus scheme, increased parental leave and financial support for in-vitro fertilisation (IVF), our TFR has continued to fall.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to put on record that the Progress Singapore Party supports the EIP that we have for the HDB flats. What we take issue with is that the EIP has caused economic disadvantages. There is an economic cost to the minorities. So, we have recommended in this Parliament that we should compensate the minorities for that economic cost they have incurred. So, that is all we have said. We are not against the EIP at all.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his clarification. I had originally directed this Parliamentary Question at Minister Edwin Tong actually, because he made comments at the IPS conference that we should be constantly reviewing the CMIO model. So, I just wanted to clarify whether the Government is thinking of a change and whether a review, a bigger review is being undertaken and what that review will be. I am satisfied with the clarifications of the Minister and I have actually no further comments on that.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just one last question to the Minister. So, why does the Minister see fit to give the President the veto power under the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act, but not under FICA?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember when we were debating FICA some years ago, I asked the Minister this question specifically – whether the President has to act according to the recommendation of the Cabinet. And the Minister's reply at that time was yes, the President has to act according to the recommendation of the Cabinet. In that case, under FICA, the President does not have the power to independently veto the decision of the Cabinet or the Minister. Is that right?”
“Mr Speaker, we are now debating a little bit about the powers of the EP. So, I think it is a relevant question, Minister. What I want to know is, under FICA, the EP does not have the power to veto the Minister's decision, right?”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to clarify with the Minister on one point. This power that is given to the EP is actually not inside FICA, right? I am not a legal expert, but I want to clarify with the Minister on this point.”
“But we can get an answer from the Minister now.”
“Can he clarify that MOM has confirmed that the effect of immigration has not altered the conclusion of the PME ratio that he has raised? Because he is trying to say that there is no under-employment, Singaporean PMEs are doing well. And why are they doing well? It is because there is low unemployment, it is because the PME ratio is increasing. So, I raised my point because every economic indicator the Minister has raised, I can actually raise a lot of issues about it, as I am an economics statistician.”
“Yes, yes. So, the Minister also denied that the effect of immigration has not altered his conclusion on the PME ratio that he had raised? Does the Minister understand my question? Because the PME ratio is not a pure ratio.”
“No, but the Minister interjected. I wanted to ask.”
“Can I ask one more question? One more clarification?”
“Mr Speaker, I would just like to reiterate my clarification because the Minister did not really answer my question. So, I would just like to confirm that the MOM has not done any study into under-employment? Two, the MOM has also not —”
“So, the first question I want to ask is: has the MOM conducted any study on the possibility of under-employment in the Singapore job market? The second question I want to ask is – this is also something that I have debated with the Manpower Minister over the years – just now, he had written off my assertion that low unemployment does not mean no significant under-employment. By quoting another macro indicator, that is the PMET or PME ratio, he quoted roughly that the ratio has gone up from 50% to 60% over a certain period. But I want to know, has the Government actually looked at this ratio again after stripping out the immigration effect? We know that this ratio is very corrupted, with original Singaporeans at the beginning of a period, new citizens that came in and new PRs. So, there is a lot of immigration effect on these macro indicators. So, did MOM look into a kind of pure indicator, rather than having all these effects and then, now, telling Singaporeans that the ratio has gone up from 50% to 60%? These are my two questions. I hope that is clear enough.”
“Speaker, I have debated in this Parliament many times on the manpower policies and I have two questions to ask the Manpower Minister today. But let me have a short preamble. I am very concerned, having debated this Government over the last few years, that the Government seems to be very complacent about the effect of its foreign manpower policies on Singaporean workers – and every time the Manpower Minister has countered me with selected macro indicators. Today, in the same fashion, I have said that low unemployment does not mean there is no significant under-employment. So, the first thing, the first question —”
“A whole-of-Government approach is needed to reset our education, training, manpower and immigration policies so that Singaporeans can have stable that commensurate with their skills and aspirations. We must prevent under-employment from taking root in Singapore, or the Singapore we know today may become extinct in the near future. We must have a Parliament that heeds this message and a Government that implements effective manpower policies for Singapore. Sir, notwithstanding the concerns and reservations that I have expressed today, PSP supports the Bill. For country, for people.”
“The Government's policies should communicate to all employers in no uncertain terms that all else being equal, Singaporeans will have the first right to a job. We need additional policies to oblige employers to justify why a foreigner is favoured over a Singaporean when both have the same skills to do the same job. For example, in Australia, employers can sponsor foreign workers only if they can demonstrate that they cannot find an Australian citizen or permanent resident with the skills and experience needed for the job. Similarly, in Canada, most employers need to conduct a labour market impact assessment to determine that there is a need for a temporary foreign worker and that no Canandian citizens or permanent residents are available, before they can hire a temporary foreign worker. This Bill is a landmarked piece of legislation for Singapore. I acknowledge the hard work put in by the Minister and his Ministry. But its real worth is in substantially improving the job prospects of Singaporeans in general and protecting more vulnerable workers from workplace discrimination. If that is done, it will be a big step towards realising a harmonious and cohesive society. I have been actively engaging Singaporeans, especially in the West of Singapore for the past four years as a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament. A consistent message has emerged from these engagements. It is increasingly difficult for Singaporeans to find a job that commensurate with their skills and aspirations. It appears that rising under-employment amongst Singaporeans is a growing menace to us as a nation. The Government needs to do a lot more and not rest on its laurels by just focusing on the low unemployment numbers. The low unemployment numbers may be camouflaging serious underemployment.”
“During the debate on the Platform Workers' Bill last September, I and other Members, including the Leader of the Opposition and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, have spoken about platform workers potentially facing discrimination because of their CPF contributions. This concern is especially pertinent in the short-term until we reach a point where the majority of the workers available for platform work will need mandatory CPF. Platform workers may now enjoy more legal protections under the Platform Workers Act, but they will not have access to the remedies available to employees under the Workplace Fairness Bill if they experience discriminatory treatment while working on the platforms. PSP calls on the Government to study whether we can similarly cover platform workers under the new law within the next two years. Additionally, we find it hard to understand the intention of clause 17(3) of the Bill. Can the Minister explain whether this clause 17(3) allows an employer to dismiss a worker A on the ground of the race or religion of A's husband? The Leader of the Opposition has also raised this yesterday and I look forward to a clearer explanation from the Minister later. The Minister has said that this Bill will be constantly reviewed, but we hope that the Government will commit, today, to periodically reviewing the Bill, after it is passed, every two years to ensure that the protected characteristics are kept up-to-date and keep up with any new types of discrimination that may become prevalent. Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I have said in my maiden speech in 2020 that a job is the foundation of human dignity. Work is fundamental in providing a person with meaning in life. That is why I have spoken out repeatedly about job security and workplace fairness.”
“Next, I will discuss how the exemptions granted may reduce the effectiveness of the new law. Under clause 4(1) of the Bill, the Act will not apply to businesses with fewer than 25 workers. This same exemption is already used in the used in the Complementary Assessment Framework (COMPASS) system. During the Committee of Supply in 2023, I highlighted that this exemption could provide a potential loophole that will allow larger companies to set up subsidiaries that can discriminate based on nationality, for example, by employing one local and 24 foreign professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs). Alternatively, foreigners could partner locals to set up small companies to supply manpower to our bigger companies, hence depriving Singaporeans of good jobs in the bigger companies. PSP understands the need to support small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in this transition, but we hope the Minister can assure us that this exemption will be strictly enforced and not abused as a conduit to increase the supply of cheaper foreign manpower. We have the same concerns about exempting contracts for service under clause 4(3) of the Bill. This exemption means that a service buyer could include discriminatory provisions in his bid document or contract with the service provider. Hence, clauses 4(1) and 4(3) could potentially be used together by a big company to contract SMEs with less than 25 persons to supply it with Work Pass holders and even from one single nationality. Hence, we hope MOM will diligently monitor these exemptions and ensure that they are not abused. Finally, I would like to address how the coverage of this Bill can be expanded. Under clause 3 of the Bill, the law will exclude platform workers.”
“Why can the Bill not stipulate directly that all else being equal, Singaporeans should have the first right over a foreigner to any job in Singapore? The Government owes an answer to Singaporeans, especially those who have been displaced and underemployed in the last two decades. And like the Minister has said, this Bill is not a panacea. It has to be backed up by other policies that remove the causes or incentives for discrimination. For example, one example is to ensure that there is no wage disparity between a Singaporean and a foreign worker. We can manage the level of wages in the economy to maintain our competitiveness, but we should never allow a wage disparity to exist that disadvantages the Singaporean workers. As a result, we have urged the Government on many occasions to introduce a Central Provident Fund (CPF) equalisation levy of $1,200 per month on Employment Pass (EP) holders. That is the only way to stop employers from favouring cheaper foreign workers over Singaporean workers. PSP welcomes quality foreign workers who have skillsets that are not readily available in Singapore to be recruited to enrich and complement our workforce, but not cheaper foreign workers who only displaces our more expensive Singaporean workers. Similarly, while age is stipulated as a protected characteristic in the Bill, this may not be enough to eliminate the temptation for employers to substitute older and more expensive Singaporean workers with cheaper foreign workers to boost the bottom line. We have to back up the Bill with additional measures to strengthen protection of our older workers. These measures may take the form of job support subsidies for older workers, which can be funded by the foreign levies collected.”
“The Workplace Fairness Bill we are debating today is long awaited. It begs the question as to why the Government has taken so long to table this Bill when it should be the Government's top concern to ensure that Singaporeans have fair access to employment opportunities. PSP welcomes this Workplace Fairness Bill, which protects workers from discrimination on ground of 11 clearly designated, protected characteristics. However, we have some concerns and reservations. Firstly, whether this new law will be sufficient to protect Singaporeans from discriminatory practices at the workplace. This should be the paramount goal of this Bill. Secondly, will the exemptions granted in the new law reduce its effectiveness? And lastly, what are the plans to extend the coverage of the Bill to platform workers and expand the list of protected characteristics in future? Firstly, on the protection of Singaporean workers. Over the years, we have heard many complaints on the ground from Singaporeans who feel aggrieved that foreigners have been preferred for jobs. PSP notes that nationality is one of the characteristics protected under clause 9 of the proposed Bill; and clause 22 says that it is not discrimination for an employer to make an employment decision that adversely affects an individual if that individual is neither a Singapore Citizen nor a PR of Singapore. This is a clear indication that the Bill provides for preference to Singaporeans and PRs. However, how did we reach a point where we need to explicitly state that preference for Singaporean workers are not considered discrimination? When and how did Singaporeans lose their first right to jobs in their own country?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP), has been speaking up on workplace discrimination issues faced by Singaporeans since our founding in 2019. My maiden speech in this 14th Parliament on 1 September 2020 focused on workplace discrimination of Singaporeans vis-a-vis foreign talent. Job security has been a hot issue since the General Election (GE) in 2011. Prior to that election, the Government gave out very large numbers of PRs, peaking at almost 80,000 new PRs in 2008 before reducing to the 30,000 a year today. There was widespread anger when the Government released the population White Paper in 2013, partly because many Singaporeans felt that the influx of new migrants had been a threat to their jobs and more migrants would worsen this trend. Until today, many still feel the same way. Workplace discrimination and anxieties over foreign workers, again, became a top concern during GE 2020, amid job losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. The situation at that time was not good, with some 1,200 companies put on the watchlist of the FCF for potentially discriminatory hiring practices. A study by the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) also showed that workplace discrimination is widespread, with about one in two Singaporeans facing such discrimination between 2017 and 2022. A survey by MOM in 2020 found that race, age and nationality were the top three grounds of discrimination. In his National Day Message in 2021, then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong admitted that the Government has to adjust its policies to manage the quality, numbers and concentration of Work Pass holders. He later announced, at the National Day Rally, that the Fair Employment Guidelines would be enshrined into law. It has been more than three years since then.”
“Mr Speaker, Minister Indranee took credit for what I said in my preamble, but did not answer my questions. So, can I ask the question again: whether the circular was cleared by any political office holders and whether political office holders were giving directions when civil servants in ACRA and MDDI were clarifying with one another on the instruction in the circular?”
“My clarification is this. Whether the circular was cleared by any political officeholders and whether any political officeholders were giving direction when the civil servants in ACRA and MDDI were clarifying with each other on the instructions of that circular. Depending on the answers, I would like to know whether our civil servants have been thrown under the bus.”
“So, we are not sure why the whole process has taken on such a shape. As a result, I have a few questions, although first of all, I am very disappointed that the circular is not —”
“Yes. What I am saying is that why can ACRA not just come out and say, "Yes, we made a mistake." Then, case closed. And then, at a later stage, the Government can say that, "Yes. Please be aware of using your NRIC number as authenticator." So, step up the education and that is case closed. I do not know why the Ministers —”
“Yes, yes. The clarification has to be preceded by this preamble.”
“Mr Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the Ministers for confirming that the full NRIC numbers are not about to be unmasked in a very big way. I think that is the single most important worry of many Singaporeans. We have no problem about the Government using our full NRIC numbers or the banks using our full NRIC numbers in their internal processes. But to reveal those numbers, like what ACRA has done, although ACRA is exempted from the PDPA, we have a problem. And we thank the Ministers for confirming that that is not the case. Because during the whole process leading up to today's clarification, even including the Ministers' press conference, it was not exactly clear as to what the Government intends to do. So, today's clarification is very useful. And why was it not very clear? Because even after today's two hours of clarification, we still have doubts that ACRA disclosed the full NRIC numbers when it is not supposed to do so. So, why not ACRA comes out, do a proper apology and then the Ministers come out to say that, "Yes. We also caution that —”
“Singapore's Pioneer hawkers have provided us with good quality, affordable food through hard work and low profits. But under current pressures of high rentals, manpower shortages and competition from corporatised hawkers, individual hawkers face enormous challenges. At the current rate, traditional hawker culture based on individual hawkers' diligence and entrepreneurial spirit will gradually decline. In today's debate, PSP has put forward some policy recommendations, hoping to spark more public discussion and help create more space to maintain and develop our hawker culture. We hope the Government will consider our suggestions and let Singaporeans judge which policy proposals are more beneficial for Singapore in the long run. I hope everyone in Parliament agrees that hawker centres and hawkers must thrive so that we can continue to enjoy delicious and affordable hawker food, and maintain and develop our country's unique hawker culture. (In English): Sir, having made my points clear, the PSP is ready to support the amended Motion, which is not too different from the original Motion tabled by me. This is to show that this House is united in our support for hawkers. Sir, I beg to move, as quickly as possible, please. [Laughter.] 9.58 pm”
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, PSP has put forward a Motion to protect our hawker culture, calling on the Government to review policies related to hawkers and hawker centre management, and to provide better support for hawkers to maintain and develop Singapore's hawker culture. The hawker culture is not only a part of Singaporean identity but also a UNESCO intangible cultural heritage. Hawker centres, as "people's kitchens", provide Singaporeans with delicious and affordable food, offering a buffer against high living costs. At the same time, the hawker industry provides an ideal entrepreneurial platform for young, aspiring business owners. Promoting hawker food domestically and internationally, winning over hearts and palates worldwide, is a way for Singapore to enhance its soft power, which will bring significant economic benefits. Therefore, PSP believes that protecting and preserving hawker culture is crucial. However, the challenges faced by hawkers are threatening the survival of this unique culture. Thus, PSP calls on the Government to re-examine its policies. In today's Motion, PSP has put forward six policy recommendations, which my colleague Hazel Poa has also introduced in Chinese in her speech. PSP believes these six policy changes will revitalise our hawker culture, making Singapore's hawker food shine brighter on the international stage while ensuring hawker centres continue to provide affordable food for Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, two months ago, we debated the Bill for platform workers, an important group of workers worthy of attention. Our local hawkers are another crucial group maintaining societal operations, equally deserving of our attention.”
“If you disallow that to the individual hawkers, then you continue to make them the underdogs. And my last point, you may have a lot of competing objectives, but to impose budget meals and discounts to hawker meals, imposing the cost on the hawkers is an objective that you can do without. Those are the main points that I would like to say. Sir, in closing, two months ago, we debated a Bill for an important group of essential workers that deserve our attention – the platform workers. I regard our local hawkers as another group of workers essential to the functioning of our society that really need our attention. Exemplified by many of my Chinatown neighbours in the past, our Pioneer hawkers started off as humble folks who just want to earn enough to feed their families. They worked very hard but are satisfied with getting meagre profits. As a result, we were able to enjoy cheap and good hawker food for a long time. Today, in the 21st century, hawkers are facing tremendous headwinds, with high rental, shortage of manpower, unfair competition and increasing constraints from corporatisation, and also the persistent societal expectations to provide cheap and good food. This situation is not sustainable. At the rate we are going, our traditional hawker culture which is based on the hard work and enterprise of individual hawkers will slowly wither away. Corporatisation of the hawker trade is a natural development of the market economy, but we can ensure a more level playing field for our individual hawkers to thrive and flourish. The current pride of our hawkers is at least partly due to the policies by the Government. The onus is now on the Government to consider our suggestions to provide better support for hawkers in the future. Sir, Mandarin, please.”
“In PSP's view, we think that the corporatised culture of a social enterprise model is actually not compatible with the free sole proprietor spirit of individual hawkers. And if you take into consideration the possibility of conflict of interest between the private operator and he operating a social enterprise hawker centre, we are of the view that it may be better off for experienced civil servants of the Hawker Centres Group to actually provide more help to the management of the hawker centres. That is one of our points and that is why we say, bring the whole thing up as the new Government agency, Hawker Singapore. The second point, while we appreciate the advantages that Senior Minister of State Koh has shared with us about the tender system, there is still an unanswered question as to why is there a need for the system to also cater for a renewal system that is so peculiar, specifically, a high tender bid will be reduced to a lower Assessed Market Rent after the initial three years. Is it not better off to have a system whereby the bidder continues to pay as he bid? Or after three years, a new bidding again for the same stall. So, we still think that this kind of tender system did contribute to the escalating prices in our HDB coffee shops and food courts. And that is one of the major causes of escalating cooked food prices in the long run. The third point, we also disagree that while you allow the coffee shops and the food courts to employ Work Permit holders, you do not allow the individual hawkers to do so. In doing so, you are putting them at a disadvantage. And in order for us to preserve the distinctive Singaporean character of our hawker culture, we must ensure the individual hawkers are competitive vis a vis the corporatised hawkers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think anyone in the Chamber would tolerate me for another 40-minute speech. Sir, as a result, I frantically summarised what I wanted to say, while Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon was speaking. But I must also admit that I have never felt that I had that much power over this Chamber before. I think my speech will be about 15 minutes, a summary in English, and then a summary in Chinese. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank first of all, all the officeholders and Members who participated in this debate. I also thank the Workers' Party for supporting most of the points that PSP has raised. I am glad that based on the amended Motion put forward by Mr Edward Chia, all of us have agreed on the importance of safeguarding our hawker culture, which is an important national institution and cultural inheritance, and the need to provide help to our hawkers to continue to provide good and affordable food and earn a fair livelihood at the same time. I thank Senior Minister of State Koh for the very comprehensive explanation of the Government policies – I indeed learned a lot from it. However, I think to summarise my concerns, there are these following issues which I think if the Government does not tackle further, the prospects and livelihoods of our hawkers will not improve that much and will threaten the sustainability of our hawker culture on the long term. So, I hope the Government will continue to consider these four points that I raised. Firstly, about the social enterprise model, I think so far, we are still not sure what is the actual contribution made by the social enterprise model, vis a vis the problems that the model has brought about.”
“We also propose a new rent model which will charge lower rent and is intended to have ripple effects on rents in coffeeshops and food courts. Next, we propose allowing each hawker stall to employ one Work Permit holder as stall assistant. Finally, instead of forcing hawkers to provide “budget meals” at their own expense, the Government should pay for targeted food discounts for Pioneer, Merdeka and CHAS cardholders at all hawker centres and provide lower-income households with more CDC vouchers. My colleague Ms Hazel Poa will speak on two other policy proposals later on centralising procurement of essential ingredients and revising the Code of Conduct for Leasing of Retail Premises. PSP believes that our six proposed policy changes will re-invigorate our hawker culture and allow it to shine brightly on the global culinary scene. At the same time, it will ensure that the hawker centre, the people’s kitchen of our nation, will provide us with affordable food for many more generations to come. Only then can we say our hawker culture has truly lived up to its reputation as a UNESCO Intangible World Heritage. Sir, I beg to move. For country, for people. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“These hawkers are in no position to do charity and should not be forced to do so. Hawkers should be allowed to determine their own prices, which should not be controlled by the Government or operators. They deserve to be fairly remunerated and incentivised to sell good and affordable food to Singaporeans. It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that food remains affordable. We propose that discounts for Pioneer, Merdeka and CHAS cardholders should be paid for the Government, for example through the funds in the Pioneer or Merdeka Generation Funds. These discounts should be available for food at all hawker centres. The Government can also provide lower-income households with more Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers so that they can use these vouchers to pay for their hawker meals. Sir, in closing, our hawker culture is a precious inheritance from our Pioneer generation which we should preserve and grow. The UNESCO accolade has given us an added reason to do so. However, high operating costs and harsh working environment have deterred younger Singaporeans from entering the hawker trade while existing hawkers are ageing and retiring. As a result, our distinctively Singaporean hawker culture and food are fast disappearing. The Government’s policy responses to these problems so far are too little and too late. I have shared four policy changes to improve the prospects and livelihoods of our hawkers so that they are motivated to professionalise, innovate and sustain our hawker culture. Firstly, PSP recommends that the social enterprise hawker centre be phased out and the management of hawkers centralised under a new government agency called Hawker Singapore.”
“On the other hand, our proposal will reduce the workload of senior hawkers and allow them to continue their trade for a longer time, while we encourage our younger Singaporeans and second-generation hawkers to enter the hawker trade with our new rent structure and training at the new hawker academy. This provides more assurance that our hawker culture remains sustainable. Thirdly, to keep hawker food affordable in the immediate future, the Government should provide targeted discounts for needy groups and adjust the “budget meal” policies that have emerged in recent years. The Government has introduced the “budget meal” initiative, possibly to insulate Singaporeans from rising costs in other areas like housing, Certificates of Entitlements and healthcare. Social enterprise hawker centres and some HDB coffee shops already contractually force stallholders to sell budget meals, usually at $3 or $3.50. By 2026, all stalls in rental HDB coffee shops will be required to sell these budget meals. The problem is, all these “budget meals” are paid by the hawkers. Hawkers in social enterprise hawker centres are also forced to provide discounts, at their expense, to Pioneer, Merdeka and Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) cardholders. I do not believe there is any other industry where we contractually force suppliers to sell items below a certain price. When HDB rents out shop spaces for supermarkets in the new estates, for example, HDB does not contractually force the supermarket operator to sell some budget food items below market prices. So, why do we require this of our hawkers? Every cent earned by the hawkers is hard-earned money. Half of the stallholders in the hawker centres are lower-income Singaporeans who received the Workfare Income Supplement in 2020.”
“Mr Tan Hock Guan who ran the Michelin-recognised Guan Kee Fried Kway Teow stall in Ghim Moh also retired last November when he fainted while frying kway teow. All these are not new to me. I have witnessed, as a child, the many accidents and hardships experienced by the Chinatown neighbours of mine who are hawkers. Some might have made some money but, usually, they had to retire relatively young due to various ailments. For hawkers, additional manpower can help to reduce their workload and prolong their working life. However, apart from hawker stall owners, few Singaporeans would want to work at a hawker stall. In this case, a Work Permit holder will complement our current hawkers without threatening the job security of Singaporeans. Therefore, PSP recommends that each cooked food hawker stall, including drinks and cut fruit stalls, should be allowed to employ one Work Permit holder as a stall assistant. This is not a completely new policy because the Government already allows companies operating coffee shops and food courts to hire Work Permit holders. PSP also believes that the recent move by the Government to allow hawkers to employ Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) holders as stall assistants will not be adequate to address the manpower problems of the hawkers. It is difficult to understand why coffee shop and food court operators are allowed to employ Work Permit holders but individual hawkers are not. Our policy proposal will not undermine the Singaporean character of our hawker centres because only one Work Permit holder is allowed per stall.”
“Under this rent model, all hawker stalls will be charged a monthly base rent of $500 or 3% of gross turnover, whichever is higher. Stalls will be allocated by a random ballot within each food category curated by Hawker Singapore under the advice of the independent industry panel. Currently, NEA has five categories of stalls: cooked food, halal cooked food, Indian cuisine, drinks and cut fruits. We suggest adding a sixth category, namely, heritage foods, to ensure that as many traditional foods unique to the different races in Singapore as possible are preserved. For example, it would be nice to see a revival of Eurasian food in our hawker centres. Later, my colleague Ms Hazel Poa will present a possible model for curating hawker stalls. PSP's proposed rental model is skewed to support smaller hawkers with lower rentals. It will lower the barriers of entry for new hawkers and thus enhance the sustainability of our hawker culture. At the same time, it will not price out hawkers who are successful in growing their business. Secondly, we need to adjust the manpower policies for hawkers to deal with the problem of manpower shortage and the lack of successors. The hawker trade is physically demanding, taxing on their health and even dangerous, especially for elderly hawkers. Hawkers must deal with long working hours. For example, to serve the breakfast crowd at 6.00 am or 7.00 am, the hawkers must wake up at 1.00 am or 2.00 am. Floors in hawker stalls are slippery or oily and hawkers must work around hot oil, knives and choppers. There have been many accidents involving hawkers. In September, it was reported that a famous Chinatown claypot rice hawker, Uncle Hong, decided to retire because of complications after he fell and broke his pelvic bone.”
“In 2023, the median monthly rent for non-subsidised stalls at NEA-operated hawker centres was $1,625 per month but bids frequently exceeded that, especially for stalls in better locations with higher footfall. One successful tender recently exceeded $10,000 per month. While allowing bids to hit new records through the tender system, the Government also reduces a tendered rent to an assessed market rent when the hawker renews his contract after the initial three-year period. In other words, from the fourth year onwards, the $10,000 bidder will pay a much lower rent for the same stall. Last week, the Government announced that it would prolong the time required to adjust the tendered rent to the assessed market rent so as to deter excessively high hawker stall bids. This latest change shows that the Government is aware of the problems of the current system. However, the question of why such a system still exists remains. The current tender system has the negative effect of driving up headline rentals in hawker centres. This can have a ripple effect on the rents and values of Housing and Development Board (HDB) coffee shops. Several HDB coffee shops have been transacted at multi-million dollars in recent years bought by large business groups. A record price of $9,361 per square foot was set in 2022 by the Chang Cheng Mee Wah Group when it bought a Yishun coffee shop for $40 million. Such high market prices for coffee shops have been a major cause of the rising cooked food prices and cost of living in Singapore. The PSP recommends that we move away from the tendering model altogether. Instead, we propose a more flexible rent model, with the aim of lowering rent and curbing excessive speculation in coffee shops.”
“It will work with hawkers in each hawker centre to develop its own unique value proposition within the general guidelines laid down by itself. We envisage that Hawker Singapore will be advised by an independent industry expert panel to formulate strategies, finance expansion and assist hawkers to professionalise their business. We also propose that Hawker Singapore should set up a hawker academy to be a focal point for training young hawkers. Former Member, Mr Leon Perera, had raised this in this House in 2021 and PSP supports this suggestion. A hawker academy will provide training and succession planning for hawkers, set standards for the hawker trade and help to preserve a selection of heritage foods that are important to our different communities. In addition to centralising the management of all hawker centres, I will present three more policy recommendations to deal with the three other problems I discussed earlier. These recommendations will provide the impetus to preserve and grow the hawker trade in a sustainable way. Firstly, to deal with the problem of high rent, the Government needs to move away from the practice of setting hawker stall rents by tender. While rent may not be the biggest cost item for a hawker, it is the biggest burden because it is a fixed cost. Hawkers can save on variable costs but not fixed costs. Only the pioneer cooked food hawkers who were resettled from the streets get to enjoy subsidised rentals between $192 and $384 per month at the NEA-operated hawker centres. They represent about 30% of the hawkers today. The non-subsidised stalls which account for 70% of the hawkers must pay market rent determined via the tender system where stalls are rented out to the highest bidder.”
“From 2019 to 2023, the average annual early termination rate for food stalls at social enterprise hawker centres was 8%, more than twice as high as the 3% early termination rate at NEA-operated hawker centres. The social enterprise model is arguably not helping to sustain and grow the hawker culture. I have done some calculations on the potential cost burdens imposed on hawkers by social enterprises. For example, it was reported that JW Heritage, another social enterprise operator and a subsidiary of the Chang Cheng Mee Wah Group, paid $4.86 million to the Government to manage the Jurong West Hawker Centre when it reopened in 2023. Since there are 39 stalls there, this contract price translates into a cost of $125,000 per stall. This cost represents a huge cost burden which must be recouped either from the stallholders or customers. But is it justifiable for private operators to extract surpluses or profits from hawker centres which are public assets, even if 50% is required to go back to programmes that benefit the hawker centres and hawkers? The PSP recommends that the current social enterprise model be phased out, as the contracts of the current operators expire. This will eliminate the problems in social enterprise hawker centres. PSP proposes that hawker centre management be taken over by a new Government agency tentatively called Hawker Singapore. This agency can be formed by transferring the current Hawker Centres Group of NEA to it and then further expanding it. Hawker Singapore will oversee the management of all hawker centres in Singapore and the promotion of hawker culture domestically and internationally, working together with other relevant agencies, such as the Singapore Tourism Board and Enterprise Singapore.”
“It was also reported publicly in June 2024 that the hawkers of Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre tried to lower costs by asking the operator to let them use a cheaper gas provider, but they were denied. Based on replies to my past Parliamentary Questions (PQs), we know that the median rent at social enterprise hawker centres is about 5% higher than the median rent at NEA-operated hawker centres. However, auxiliary costs at the social enterprise hawker centres, such as table cleaning fees, dishwashing fees, Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CCs) and pest control fees, can add up to as much as the rent itself. Hawkers in social enterprise hawker centres also face many hidden costs. For example, they must bear the costs of offering loyalty discounts, budget meals and subscriptions to food delivery platforms. All these are part of a long list of onerous contractual obligations on hawkers who may have to pay damages or receive demerit points if they fail to meet these requirements. Following the outcry in 2018 against the social enterprise operators, NEA reviewed the key contractual terms between such operators and their stallholders and asked operators to make changes with effect from 1 January 2019. However, the contractual terms seem to have continued to be very onerous, as I have confirmed in a contract signed by a hawker of a social enterprise hawker centre in 2022. Over the years, the officeholders have repeatedly come out to say that the social enterprise model is sound, working well and has benefited hawkers and customers. But it is a sign that things are not going well when many more hawkers of social enterprise hawker centres are terminating their contract earlier, compared to hawkers of NEA-operated hawker centres.”
“The crux of the problem arguably is that the Government expects hawkers to provide cheap food as a safety net amidst the very high cost-of-living environment in Singapore. Yet at the same time, the Government has created a high-cost environment for hawkers to operate in. PSP calls for a holistic and comprehensive review of the hawker trade by the Government, which should cover all hawkers operating in hawker centres, coffee shops and food courts. We do not know how long more we can sustain our hawker culture because of the many challenges faced by hawkers. These challenges can be grouped into four areas: one, hawker centre management, which includes problems with the social enterprise hawker centre model; two, high rent and other operating costs; three, harsh working conditions leading to shortage of manpower and successors; and four, the expectation to provide cheap food, which is partly encouraged by the Government. I will start by discussing the first problem of hawker centre management. There are more than 120 hawker centres in Singapore today. Out of these, 12 are managed by private operators under the social enterprise model, as of 31 December 2023. Since the introduction of the social enterprise model in 2012, we have seen multiple conflicts between hawkers and social enterprise operators because of the high costs and onerous contractual conditions, compared to the National Environment Agency (NEA)-operated hawker centres. For example, in 2018, the hawkers of the Jurong West Hawker Centre filed a petition against a 20-cent tray return surcharge imposed by Hawker Management, a social enterprise operator and subsidiary of the Koufu Group.”
“But their dreams are often hindered by the high entry cost to the hawker business. I am confident that with lower rent and better working conditions, hawker centres can become incubators for our future food and beverage (F&B) entrepreneurs. Last but not least, there are huge economic benefits if we promote our hawker food both domestically and internationally. As a parallel, Thai food has done very well globally. The number of Thai restaurants overseas has tripled from about 5,000 in 2002 to 15,000 in 2024. But a large part of their success is due to strong government support, such as in training chefs, providing loans and conducting market research to advise chefs on how to appeal to foreign tastes. Thai dishes often rank among the top in global culinary surveys, overshadowing our local dishes. I have been unhappy for a long time that chicken rice is recognised more as a Thai dish than a Singapore dish in Tokyo. There is no reason why Singapore hawker food cannot be as world renowned as Thai food. The well-reviewed Urban Hawker in New York, curated by Mr KF Seetoh, is an example of the success we can achieve if we do more as a nation to promote our hawker food overseas. We can extend our soft power by winning the hearts and minds of people all over the world through their stomachs. This is another example of how we can punch above our weight. However, despite all the significant cultural and economic benefits that hawker culture can bring to us, it may wither in the future without policy adjustments to provide greater support to our hawkers. A serious examination of the problems faced by hawkers and new policies to address these problems are long overdue.”
“I would like to invite the whole House to join me in a round of applause to thank them for their hard work and their dedication to providing good food at affordable prices for Singaporeans. [Applause.] Today, I will first discuss the importance of preserving and promoting our hawker culture before discussing the problems faced by hawkers. My colleague Ms Hazel Poa and I will then put forward possible policies to resolve these problems. These policy recommendations are based on the belief that the success of our hawker culture is inextricably tied to the success of our hawkers. First, I will speak on the importance of preserving and promoting our hawker culture. The PSP believes there are at least four major benefits. Firstly, hawker culture and hawker food is a rich heritage handed down by our ancestors that needs to be preserved and passed on to future generations of Singaporeans. The UNESCO recognition is an added reason for us to sustain this heritage. Secondly, affordable hawker food has provided Singaporeans a buffer against the high cost of living in Singapore. The convenience and affordability of eating out also allowed many families to earn dual incomes. With millions of meals served to Singaporeans every day, hawker centres are the people's kitchens. To maintain them, we have to first help our hawkers to survive and thrive. Thirdly, the hawker trade is one of the most conducive route for a budding entrepreneur to try out a business venture. I lived in Japan for many years, so I know of many Japanese who talked about starting a cooked food business as a business or hobby or just a place to meet friends and people. I am beginning to see this among some of our younger Singaporeans today.”
“We have a responsibility in this House to pass on our hawker culture to our future generations and to ensure that it not only survives, but flourishes, long into the future. But our hawkers will need a lot of help and support at the national level to achieve this. We need to do more than putting up shows at the National Day Parade to celebrate our hawker food heritage. The Government did not build any new hawker centres from 1986 until 2011. Since then, many Singaporeans, including those who know the hawker trade, have stepped forward to contribute good ideas to better support hawkers. However, besides the introduction of the social enterprise model, officially called the Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centre (SEHC) model, not much else has fundamentally changed about the way the Government manages hawkers. Many other ideas relating to building up the human capital of the industry and providing further support to hawkers have not been implemented. I would like to acknowledge first the effort of those Singaporeans who had participated in the relevant discussions and research. I also seek their indulgence to use some of their ideas in the debate today. Personally, the hawker trade is close to my heart. My late father was a hawker in Chinatown, the sole breadwinner for our family. My sister is a wonton noodle hawker today. I am deeply honoured to have the opportunity to speak up on this issue in this House today. The PSP hopes that our Motion today will remind Singaporeans of the people behind the good and affordable food we enjoy every day. Some of these hawkers, advocates and supporters are with us in the House today, in the Strangers' Gallery, at my invitation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That this House calls on the Government to review its policies relating to hawkers and the management of hawker centres to provide better support for hawkers to sustain and grow our Singapore's hawker culture so that Singaporeans can continue to enjoy good and affordable hawker food." Sir, since 2020, our hawker culture has been recognised as a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Intangible Cultural Heritage. But have we provided enough support to our hawkers who are the creators of that culture? That is the question that prompted the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) to raise this Motion today. The UNESCO accolade aside, hawker culture and hawker food are central to our Singaporean identity. Hawker centres, coffee shops and food courts are spaces for Singaporeans from all walks of life, rich or poor, regardless of race, language or religion, to interact and enjoy delicious, affordable food. It is a true melting pot for all Singaporeans. It is one of the things that Singaporeans miss when they are overseas, myself included. While I was building my career overseas in 1990s, one of the things I missed most was a delicious bowl of laksa. In fact, I loved laksa so much that I had started a laksa stall in Tokyo in 2015 at the famous shopping district, Omotesando, in central Tokyo. However, the hawkers who are behind the delicious local food that we enjoy have not been provided with sufficient support. A hawker's life is a tough one. Not enough is done to address the hardship of our hawkers, who are burdened with the need to provide cheap food to the public, high rent, harsh work environment and arguably predatory management practices in the social enterprise hawker centres.”
“When you restructure the capital, you go and find all kinds of surpluses in the company, you know. And another surplus that an insurance company potentially has is in the policy fund of the policy-holders. What I am saying is that I was wondering whether I can get assurance from the Minister that this message will be passed on to NTUC.”
“Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have two questions for the Minister. One is that he did not quite answer what I have asked in the speech. Did the Government or MCCY make an effort to ask Allianz whether there is a way that this deal can be aborted without us having to come and debate a new law and introduce a new law for this? That is maybe one way of doing it. Well, I heard some laughter in the Chamber, but this is very common. I am in the finance industry for a long time. If the regulator comes to you and says, "I think, your deal, maybe you can consider this and that." Then, there will be negotiation going on. So, that should be something — If you did not do anything on that, then it is okay. I am just seeking an answer whether you did ask Allianz for that. Secondly, and it is a wish on the part of policy-holders – and I have repeated many times that I myself am an Income policy-holder – we have supported Income all these years. There is a lot of trust because Income is a company that is under the NTUC and we Singaporeans have a lot of trust in Income. Over the years, because of our support, there is a lot of surpluses built up in terms of the policies, in the policy funds they are accruing to the policy-holders. So, can I ask the Minister whether the Government can do something to remind NTUC that in the future, when they sell the company, if they have a new deal, their social responsibility will also cover their responsibility to the policy-holders. It is not just the responsibility of the social mission that the Government is talking about. Because it really worries me that you get an acquiror, potentially, and I am not referring to anybody that comes in and what they are interested in is capital restructuring.”