Singapore’s socially conscious enterprise hawker centres (SEHCs) were designed to balance stallholders’ livelihoods with affordable meals for the public, while giving operators leeway to develop sustainable business strategies.
This was reaffirmed by Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and the Environment Goh Hanyan in parliament on 24 September 2025.
She responded to questions from Members of Parliament (MPs) about tenancy agreements and the National Environment Agency’s (NEA) role in overseeing operators.
Goh said the model, introduced in 2018, aims to “harness the experience and expertise” of industry players.
Public concern over Bukit Canberra contracts
Her remarks followed public criticism of tenancy clauses at Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre.
One clause required hawkers to provide free meals under a pay-it-forward scheme, sparking debate over fairness to stallholders.
Canopy Hawkers Group, the operator, has since announced the clause will be removed from all tenancy renewals this month. Goh noted that while stallholders were informed of the scheme before renting, it had not been implemented to date.
Louis Chua questions NEA’s oversight role
Workers’ Party MP Louis Chua asked how the NEA determines responsibility for affordable or free meal provision at SEHCs. Goh responded that NEA sets baseline guidelines for tenancy terms and reviews agreements before signing.
These include limits on penalties and requirements that contracts protect stallholders’ welfare. Operators must still comply with NEA’s conditions, but retain flexibility to structure agreements.
“NEA’s requirements strike a balance between ensuring that patrons’ needs are adequately served and safeguarding stallholders’ well-being,” she said.
Affordable meals and value schemes
A central feature of SEHCs is the requirement that each stall offer at least one “value meal” priced between S$3 and S$3.60.
According to Goh, stallholders are expected to account for this when negotiating rent and are “not expected to make a loss” from these meals.
Most operators have adopted this practice, allowing stalls to price other dishes freely. Goh said operators periodically review value meal prices and have made adjustments after consulting hawkers.
Debate on digital discounts
MP Foo Cexiang questioned whether it was fair for hawkers to absorb a 10 per cent discount offered to customers using operator-developed apps. He noted this could squeeze margins, particularly for stalls with higher food costs.
Goh explained that such apps are part of broader marketing efforts. While operators bear development and publicity costs, stallholders contribute through discounts in exchange for greater sales volume.
She added that hawkers “walk in with their eyes wide open” about these requirements, and variation across cuisines was expected.
Pay-it-forward meals under scrutiny
The Bukit Canberra case highlighted broader concerns about charitable schemes written into tenancy contracts.
Louis Chua asked whether hawkers should shoulder responsibility for subsidised meals when they were not designed to bear such costs.
Goh clarified that the NEA distinguishes between mandatory value meals, which are cost-neutral for hawkers, and voluntary pay-it-forward schemes, which are business choices by operators.
She stressed that operators reinvest part of their surpluses to increase footfall, while the government absorbs the heavy cost of constructing and maintaining hawker centres.
Gerald Giam calls for stronger safeguards in SEHC contracts
Workers’ Party MP Gerald Giam pressed further on whether NEA could veto unfair clauses such as turnover-based rents, mandatory suppliers, or punitive fees.
He argued that many hawkers are low-income earners who should not bear the costs of social programmes.
Goh replied that NEA officers attend contract signings mainly to ensure transparency and comprehension. While the agency does not micro-manage, it would intervene if contracts breached guidelines or imposed excessive hidden costs.
She emphasised that the balance between operator flexibility and hawker protection remains central to the SEHC framework.
According to Goh, NEA surveys conducted between 2021 and 2024 found satisfaction levels above 80 per cent for various aspects of SEHC management. Stall occupancy stood at about 96 per cent during this period.
Operators are also required to hold quarterly feedback sessions with hawkers, attended by NEA representatives. These meetings provide a regular platform to address issues such as high gas costs, which one operator pledged to review when its current contract expires.
Addressing cost pressures
In a supplementary exchange, Foo Cexiang asked whether hawkers of different cuisines, such as Japanese food stalls with higher base costs, could sustain the value meal requirement without incurring losses.
Goh responded that while different approaches were needed, hawkers were aware of these obligations from the outset.
She said adjustments in value meal prices over time are reasonable, particularly in light of inflation.
Goh stressed that hawkers are supported through multiple channels.
Beyond affordable rents negotiated with operators, stallholders benefit from NEA’s monitoring, operator reinvestment in publicity, and government-funded infrastructure.
She reiterated that the SEHC model is not meant to impose unmanageable costs but to foster inclusive, sustainable dining spaces.
The post Goh Hanyan defends SEHC model in parliament, stressing balance of affordability and hawker welfare appeared first on The Online Citizen.
