SINGAPORE: Food critic and hawker culture advocate KF Seetoh has again challenged Goh Hanyan, Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and the Environment, over Singapore’s Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres (SEHCs) model.
His latest remarks, shared on 12 October 2025 through Facebook, came after Goh’s Instagram video posted on 19 September 2025 that highlighted the evolution of hawker centres in new housing estates.
Goh Hanyan’s video highlights evolving hawker culture
In her video, recorded at Woodleigh Village Hawker Centre, Goh interviewed hawkers and residents to discuss the role of hawker centres in modern communities.
She said, “Hawker centres have always been at the heart of our communities. As Singapore evolves, so do our dining needs. In new estates with young families and working professionals looking for convenient meals throughout the day, we need fresh approaches.”
According to Goh, demographic changes have prompted the National Environment Agency (NEA) to introduce the SEHC model, which aims to balance tradition with updated management methods for shared spaces.
Seetoh responds with detailed critique
In his Facebook post, Seetoh said he appreciated the tone of Goh’s video but argued that the short format left significant issues unaddressed.
“You had to keep it under three minutes and as a result you couldn’t ask more questions. There were at least 20 questions I believe you missed,” he wrote.
He then listed seven key concerns that he urged Goh and policymakers to raise in future discussions on hawker culture.
Seven key issues raised by Seetoh
First, Seetoh questioned the S$100 penalty fines imposed for 18 points of violation, noting the absence of mitigating measures from SEHC management compared with NEA-run centres.
Second, he said hawkers were unable to take leave without management approval, limiting flexibility for small operators.
Third, Seetoh highlighted that hawkers at SEHCs reportedly pay 30–40% more for gas than those at traditional NEA centres.
Fourth, he raised concerns over the 15% profit-sharing arrangement, calling it unfair in a publicly owned space.
Fifth, he said hawkers cannot adjust food prices in response to higher operating costs without permission from SEHC management, despite global factors such as wars, climate impacts, and trade tariffs driving inflation.
Sixth, he questioned whether hawkers should bear the unsubsidised cost of offering S$3 to S$3.50 meals for lower-income customers when many hawkers themselves face financial challenges.
Lastly, Seetoh said the NEA had not implemented ideas and feedback from past Hawker Focus Groups and industry consultations, instead leaving the responsibility to SEHC operators.
Seetoh’s post concluded by urging for more extensive public dialogue on hawker welfare and management, suggesting that a truly socially conscious approach should consider both affordability for customers and sustainability for hawkers.
He wrote, “These would give a wider insight into the world of our hawker culture at large, not just hawker centres and food menus.”
KF Seetoh earlier challenged Goh’s defence of SEHC model, calls on government to “reset and rethink”
Last month, Goh defended the SEHC model in Parliament, stressing that the model balances hawkers’ livelihoods with affordable dining, while allowing private operators flexibility to manage operations sustainably under NEA oversight.
Her remarks prompted criticism from Seetoh, who urged the government to “hit the reset and rethink button.”
He argued in a Facebook post that hawker centre management should remain under NEA control, which he called the most experienced operator since the 1960s.
Seetoh said private firms lacked heritage knowledge and were paid millions despite limited public service experience.
Seetoh disputed Goh’s claim that hawkers would not lose money from mandatory S$3–S$3.60 value meals, calling it unrealistic.
He added that hawkers shoulder costs for digital payment discounts linked to operator-run apps, despite government support for app development.
The exchange followed controversy over Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre, where a pay-it-forward clause requiring free meals was removed after backlash.
Goh clarified that hawkers had been briefed and the scheme was never implemented.
Parliamentary calls for stronger safeguards
Workers’ Party MP Louis Chua questioned NEA’s oversight of operators and whether officers attend contract signings.
Goh said NEA ensures transparency and intervenes when necessary. Gerald Giam called for tighter controls on turnover-based rents and supplier restrictions, warning that low-income hawkers face excessive risk.
Goh cited NEA surveys showing over 80% satisfaction with SEHC management and 96% occupancy, saying the government funds infrastructure while operators reinvest surpluses in marketing.
Seetoh, however, said hawkers lack bargaining power and face rising gas and rental costs while maintaining low prices.
He urged the government to listen to hawkers’ voices and review the system.
The post KF Seetoh challenges Goh Hanyan over socially conscious hawker centre model and missing ground issues appeared first on The Online Citizen.
